Brandner: Alaska Plastic Surgeon Faces Forfeiture Of $4.656 Million For Undisclosed Offshore Account Used To Attempt To Cheat Ex-Wife

Hiding Millions From Your Ex Gets Harder, Thanks To Offshore Tax Crackdown Janet Novack Forbes Staff

U.S. v. $4,656,085.10 in Bank Funds, Case No. 8:12-cv-00219-DOC-JPR (C.D.Cal., Filed 2/9/12). Full Opinion at http://goo.gl/7b64A

Dr. Michael D. Brandner, M.D., is a surgeon in Alaska who was involved in divorce proceedings with his former best friend and beloved, now known as his ex-wife, Sheila Brandner. What we know about Brandner we know for the recitations in a Complaint filed by the U.S. government as follows:

In 2008, in the middle of the divorce proceedings, Brandner made a transcontinental trek completely by car from Alaska to Panama, with $3.25 million in cashier’s checks. These checks were deposited by Brandner in a Panamanian Bank called Capital Bank, and under the account name of “Dakota Investment”.

The Complaint doesn’t identify who in Panama helped Brandner set up the Dakota Investment account, but it does let slip that such person (who, to spice things up, I will call “Mr. X”) later cooperated with the U.S. government in the separate investigation of a stock fraud scheme.

Mr. X claimed to have told Brandner that the latter was required to file a Form called the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts — commonly referred to as the “FBAR” — with the U.S. Treasury. Brandner later admitted to Mr. X that he knew about the FBAR filing requirement, but that he had not done so.

Brandner also had an IRA account with Pensco Trust Company that held about $1.26 million. Brander instructed Pensco to transfer these funds to his Bank of America account in Dana Point, California, and then a couple of days later transferred the moneys to the Dakota Investment account, plus personally kicking in a couple of more hundreds of thousands into that Panamanian account.

Now jump ahead almost exactly three years later, to 2011. Mr. X — whom Brandner had advised of the divorce decree that awarded the Pensco moneys to Sheila — placed a telephone call to Brandner and they talked about the Panamanian moneys in the Dakota Investment account. Brandner told Mr. X that “my intention is not to hand it over to the court.“

In that same call, Brandner and Mr. X came up with a new scheme, whereby Brandner created a new Panamanian company called Evergreen Capital LLC, and structured that company so that it was controlled and appeared to be owned by a foreign nominee of Brandner. Thus, Brandner could control Evergreen Capital LLC behind the scenes, and have it open a new bank account with Bank of America in Seattle to which all the money — by now $4.656 million — could be wire-transferred from Panama to the new Bank of America account.

Unbeknownst to Brandner, this telephone was monitored by the U.S. authorities, presumably because Mr. X had become a “cooperating witness” with law enforcement by this time.

At any rate, Brandner’s scheme became known to U.S. Attorney’s office, which then filed a civil Complaint against Brandner freezing the funds and seeking the forfeiture of all of his funds because of his failure to report his offshore accounts, file his FBAR, and then move the unreported moneys through the U.S. financial system by wire-transfer.

At this point, there is no indication that any criminal charges are pending or even will be filed by Brandner, but considering the nature of the U.S. Attorney’s allegations it would not be a complete surprise if someday that occurred.

Named as an interested person in the Complaint is the innocent victim Sheila Brandner, who can now presumably assert her claim against the seized funds, which the U.S. government is unlikely to contest — after the payment of taxes, interest, and probably what will be very substantial fines levied against her ex-husband.

There are quite a few lessons to be had from this case, but the most important is that it is stupid — very stupid — to engage in conduct that has the effect of turning a purely civil dispute (here, a divorce) into potential criminal charges.

The events related here are nothing like legitimate asset protection planning, but rather is another “Dumb Doctor Case” (the slang acronym is “ DDC’) where a physician wrongly concluded that he could out-smart the system. Probably every real asset protection planner who reads this Complaint will roll their eyes and count Brandner’s numerous missteps as he floundered through his scheme.

Attempting to cheat spouses out of their share of the marital estate is not a proper part of asset protection planning, either, and is wholly reprehensible conduct. Asset protection against spouses is cheap and easy and totally legitimate: It is called a “Pre-Nupt”, short for pre-nuptial agreement or pre-marital agreement. For those who are already married, most states allow post-marital agreements. Agreements to divide assets are proper; cheating the other spouse by hiding assets is not — that is what sleazy planners do.

Finally, when it comes to offshore planning, we once again see the truism: “Somebody Knows.” No matter how rock-solid the laws of some offshore jurisdiction seem to be, no matter how tight the security at an offshore bank, and no matter how carefully somebody keeps their paperwork out of the wrong hands, “ Somebody Knows.” Here, that somebody was our still-unknown Mr. X, and Mr. X was “flipped” by law enforcement to turn over his clients such as Brandner.

Brandner’s conduct was stupid on many levels, and we’ll probably see even more evidence of such stupidity as this litigation progresses. Stay tuned.

Teonoste row sparks fears of confiscations

The Sandinista government’s armed occupation of property at Punta Teonoste eco-resort has investors worried

that rule of law and property rights have gone out the window in Nicaragua

The owners of Punta Teonoste, a $2 million resort in Tola, claim their property is being confiscated by the Sandinista government (photo/ Tim Rogers)

By Tim Rogers/ Nicaragua Dispatch
February 17, 2012

The government’s armed takeover of a property allegedly belonging to Hotel Punta Teonoste, a luxury eco-resort on Nicaragua’s southern Pacific coast, is sending shockwaves throughout the investment community and renewing fears of Sandinista confiscations.

Walter Bühler, the Swiss-born majority owner of the $2 million beach resort in Tola, says armed police officers and functionaries from the prosecutors’ office arrived at his hotel Feb. 13 and informed the staff the property now belongs to the state. The government agents have not presented any judicial order or paperwork to support their claim, but are currently occupying a 20-manzana plot (nearly 34.5 acres) on the southern part of Teonoste’s property, Bühler says.

“This is a land invasion, plain and simple. The government entered by force and snatched the land like delinquents,” Bühler told The Nicaragua Dispatch. “And now the fear is that they are going to take it all, because all the land—all 65 manzanas (113 acres)—is on one single property title. So if they try to take 20 manzanas, the rest of the title is bad.”

“This is a clear-cut confiscation,” he stressed. “Without any reason, motive or judicial order, they entered by force and took the land.”

Bühler says several of his staff workers were detained by police during the invasion, but were released today.

The private sector—COSEP and the private tourism chamber—have come out in strong support of Teonoste and are demanding respect for rule of law and private property in Nicaragua. COSEP, the country’s most important business chamber, demanded a meeting with Attorney General Hernán Estrada, who in January was accused by another investor of appropriating a separate lot of prime real estate in downtown Managua.

COSEP will hold an extraordinary meeting at Punta Teonoste next Wednesday as a show of solidarity.

Estrada today confirmed that the 20 manzanas of disputed land at Teonoste have been given by the state to Edén Pastora, the flamboyant former guerrilla leader who has recently returned to President Daniel Ortega’s good graces. Estrada said Teonoste only owns 5.1 manzanas—or 8.8 acres, less than 1/10 of the property that Bühler claims to own with “clean and transparent title.”

Pastora, who is leading the Sandinista government’s river-dredging efforts on the Río San Juan, has not commented on the controversy. Bühler says the government already gave Pastora the property adjacent to Teonoste two years ago.

Trouble in Tola

The whole coast of Tola once belonged to Cornelio Hueck, a confederate of former dictator Anastasio Somoza. After the triumph of the revolution in 1979, the land became the property of the Sandinista Popular Army. Today, several of the top military brass have their vacation homes on nearby Playa Guasacate.

Bühler says he bought the title to the 65-manzana property for Punta Teonoste 13 years ago. He says the title wasn’t contested for the first decade he owned it. But in 2010—three years after Hotel Teonoste opened—the state prosecutors’ office tried to quietly annul it without telling him.

“From one day to the next, they wanted to annul the whole title,” Bühler says. “But their legal arguments were very weak, and their efforts got rejected by the court in Rivas.”

The government appealed its claim to the Appeals Court in Granada, where the case has been sitting unresolved for two years. But apparently, the state prosecutors’ office got itchy waiting for a court to act, so they did instead.

Gov’t denies confiscation

Estrada insists his office’s actions are not confiscatory against Punta Teonoste.

“In no way will this affect their valuable investment,” Estrada told government propaganda outlets. “The government is actively promoting (investment) and the prosecutors’ office has been collaborating with all investors through ProNicaragua.”

Estrada said the government is just “measuring” the properties to determine with exactness what land belongs to the state. He didn’t explain why the disputed land is being gifted to Pastora.

“We will continue to respect private property and we will continue to exercise rule of law,” Estrada said.

Opponents, however, claim rule of law already skipped town.

“Rule of law is not just weak in Nicaragua, it’s totally atrophied,” former Attorney General Alberto Novoa, Estrada’s predecessor as head of the prosecutors’ office, told The Nicaragua Dispatch. “It’s not that this was done with a lack of due process, it was done with no process. It was a unilateral decision; the prosecutors’ office said this land is mine and I am taking it.”

Novoa said that under no circumstances can the state invade land by force without a judicial order.

“We are in the presence of a state that is first of all authoritarian and secondly concentrating power for some end goal that is not yet clear,” said Novoa, who is a member of the opposition Sandinista Renovation Movement.

Teonoste is not the only case

The government’s alleged land grab at Punta Teonoste is not the only recent case of mysterious property invasions under the second coming of the Sandinista government.

The restaurant at Punta Teonoste (photo/ Tim Rogers)

Though President Daniel Ortega returned to power in 2007 with promises to sort out Nicaragua’s residual property mess—and indeed has given titles to tens of thousands of campesinos, securing their claim to property—land invasions have spiked in recent years, according to the U.S. Embassy.

“Americans who own property, many of who are dual (Nicaraguan) citizens, have suffered (recent) land invasions. And when they have gone to the authorities, authorities have not reacted. So they come to us and we inform the authorities. And I must say the reaction from the Nicaraguan government has been mixed at best,” former U.S. Ambassador Robert Callahan told The Nicaragua Dispatch in his exit interview last July.

Sandinista authorities, Callahan added, “Often turn a blind eye to these land invasions.”

The ripple effects are being felt, he said.

“That not only affects the confidence that people have in the judicial system, but it also affects foreign investment because who is going to come here if the judicial system will not respect and enforce the sanctity of contract, property titles and that kind of thing? It’s of great concern and it’s very well known as a problem. Land invasions are getting worse, absolutely,” Callahan said.

For former Attorney General Novoa, the problem is that each government—the Sandinistas and their predecessors—tries to resolve property issues to favor their own coterie.

“The problem of property rights is not resolved in Nicaragua,” Novoa said. “Former Presidents Violeta (Chamorro) and (Arnoldo) Alemán tried to resolve it, and now this government, too. But the they are trying to resolve the problem in their own way, according to the interests of a certain group that’s in power at the moment.”

If Teonoste gets gobbled up by the government, Bühler says, Nicaragua’s investment climate will go down the toilet with the strength of an industrial flush, no matter how much counter-spin the Sandinistas try to put on the situation.

“There is no confidence and tremendous judicial insecurity in Nicaragua right now,” the Swiss investor said. “If this is allowed, no one is safe and all Nicaraguans will be affected.”

Normally, when someone advertises a property for sale, you assume he owns it. Why else would anyone advertise it for sale?

Well, it turns out there are lots of other reasons. Here is recent illustration. A client contacted me a while ago asking if I would check out a beach-house she saw advertised on a internet site. I said I would have a look at it the next time I was in that area. A couple of weeks later, I called the owner of the property, and arranged to see it. I arrived and was shown a nice house right on the beach. The property was Right of Possession (ROP), but my client knew that already and was willing to buy ROP. The price was very good, about $100,000 lower than a comparable titled beach house.

Everything was looking pretty good until I asked to see the paperwork. The man I spoke to showed me a thick file of documents, including Certificas from the local mayor and corregedoria, as well as a survey and documents submitted to have the property titled by Catastro. Then I asked to see the Bill of Sale to confirm that he had actually purchased the house. Well, that was when the stories began. At first, he couldn’t remember where he had left it, but later in the day he admitted that he did not have a Bill of Sale because he still owed money to the person he bought it from.

The long and short of it is that this individual had no evidence that he owned the property he was trying to sell. In fact, he did not own it because he had never made the final payment. He is hoping some naive foreigner will come along and buy the property without asking too many questions. That person will pay a lot of money and end up owning nothing. Make sure it isn’t you.

The moral of the story, once again is caveat emptor. Get a competent lawyer and a knowledgeable real estate agent. Ask lots of questions, and make sure you get clear answers.

Martinelli’s much-vaunted law 80, intended to promote the titling of coastal and island properties, is now a year and a half old. So, what has happened? How many coastal and island properties have been titled under the new law?

Well, to the best of my knowledge, none. That’s right, not even one, at least not in Chiriqui Province.

(If anyone out there has information to the contrary, please let me know.)

Surprised? You shouldn’t be. As is common in Panama, the law itself is good, the execution not so much.

The agency responsible for titling coastal and island laws is Catastro — fondly known as Catastrophe. As far as I can tell, this agency is staffed exclusively by people who flunked out of schools for the mentally retarded.

When you visit their offices, many people are furiously rushing around, talking, opening and closing file folders, staring intently at pieces of paper, pretending to work, and accomplishing …… exactly nothing.
But I suppose that is normal for bureaucracies anywhere in the world.

So there you have it!  Martinelli’s grade thus far on Law 80 — F.

This is a real estate blog, so I should be writing about property, which, mostly, is what I do, but today I am going to make an exception and tell you about a wonderful place I just discovered in the Caldera region of Chiriqui province, near Boquete. I am talking about Racho de Caldera, a small resort and restaurant near the tiny town of Caldera.

We happened upon Rancho de Caldera by accident: a friend invited us to meet him and his wife there for dinner. The beginning was not auspicious. We got lost twice before finally finding it. The property is set on the top of a hill with fantastic views of the surrounding valley and mountains — possibly the most breath-taking highland views I have yet seen in Panama (and there are many outstanding ones to compete with it).

The main resort building is beautifully designed and very well-constructed. We didn’t look at the guest rooms because we were only there for dinner, but I have no doubt that they are up to the very high standards we saw everywhere else at Racho Caldera.

Now, let me tell you about the food! I was expecting something decent since the restaurant was billed as a gourmet venue. I wasn’t, however, expecting it to be anywhere near as good as it was.  We were seated and looked after by Gini, the very tasteful and hospitable owner of Racho Caldera, who made us feel right at home, including our dog Roscoe, who hung out with Gini’s two gorgeous golden labs and a huge Rhodesian ridgeback. There was no menu. You eat whatever the chef decides to cook that day. Normally, this makes me nervous, because I am fussy about what I eat and there are many things I don’t like, such as zuchini. Which is why I was worried when the first dish arrived — zuchini soup!

Did I mention that I hate zuchini? Scratch that and make it — hated zuchini. The chef, Craig Miller, turned one of my most despised food-stuffs into a revelation of flavours. I would never have imagined that anyone could make zuchini taste so good, and so interesting.

Then came the entre, lamb with pollenta (and many other ingredients I can’t remember). I am not especially fond of lamb. I rarely order it in restaurants. But this was very special, indeed. It was bathed in a sauce so rich, intense and flavorful that I thought it must be a red wine reduction. But no. Craig assured me there was not a hint of wine, only a complex mix of flavours derived from vegetable stock reduced and reduced and then reduced some more.

Dessert took the form of a pineapple tarte. Again, I don’t even like pineapples. I never buy them. They are far too sweet for me — normally, at any rate. This, however, was one of the best tartes, indeed one of the best deserts, I have ever tasted, perfectly baked, with a wonderful crust and accompanied by two sauces, one cream-based ( I think) and the other, well, I don’t remember, except that it all worked together in a very flavourful way.

I like good restaurants, and I make an effort, wherever I am, to search them out. This was the best meal I have had in Panama, bar none, and I include comparisons with the finest restaurants in Panama City.

Is it expensive? I don’t know. My friend paid the bill. But it doesn’t matter. Good things never come cheap. And they shouldn’t, because, if they did, you wouldn’t appreciate them. If you like good food, you owe it to yourself to go to Rancho de Caldera and let Craig Miller work his magic on your taste buds. You won’t regret it — and if you do, you are a philistine who doesn’t deserve such outstanding food!

Allen Rosen

Do a little surfing on the internet about Panama real estate and you will run into a flood of ads for Right of Possession properties claiming that they are “almost titled” or in “the final stages of titling.”

I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but this is deceptive.  It is a variation of the old story about the cheque being in the mail. Getting Right of Possession property titled is an all-or-nothing affair — like being pregnant or winning the lottery.  You are either pregnant or you’re not. You either win the lottery or you don’t. You either have title or you don’t. Coming close doesn’t mean any more with titling than it does with lottery tickets.

It is true that there are several stages in the titling process, but even if a property is in the “final” stage, it is misleading to tell prospective buyers that it is “almost titled. Even in the final stage, things can go wrong. You may be in the ‘last stage’ of titling for ever-and-a-day. It may never happen — even in the final stage. A million things can go wrong between “almost titled” and “titled.”

Especially on islands, because island right of possession properties have an extra hurdle to clear — the government has to declare the area a ’special development zone”, and it has done that in very few places.

So, you should take all these claims with a grain of salt. If you want to buy a right of possession property, fine, tell the vendor that you will pay him 50% now and 50% when it is titled (not when it is “almost” titled or in the “final stages of titling”). If he doesn’t take that offer, it is a good bet that he doesn’t really believe his property is almost titled.

Oh, and by the way, titling isn’t free, except for the first five hectares, so ask the vendor to show you the Catastro price chart showing how much the government will charge to title his property, and factor that into the price negotiations.

Allen

I keep hearing from various people — sometimes Panamanian lawyers — that it is illegal for foreigners to own right of possession properties and island properties in Panama. Our lawyers have researched this issue, and, as far as we can tell, it is yet another myth about property in Panama. Hundreds of foreigners — possibly thousands — own right of possession and island properties in Panama.

So, where does this myth come from? Mostly, one hears it from people who confidently assert it, but when asked which laws or regulations make foreign ownership illegal, are unable to cite anything specific. One exception is a lawyer’s web site I saw recently which claimed that it is illegal for foreigners to own right of possession properties on islands because most island properties are owned by the government (technically the “Nation”) and the constitution of Panama prohibits the government from selling island properties.

True enough. Most island properties are owned by the government and the constitution does prohibit the government from selling them (unless they are first declared “special development areas”). But it does not follow that it is illegal for foreigners to own rights of possession on islands — or elsewhere.

To begin with, all right of possession lands are owned by the government, whether on islands or the mainland. When you buy a right of possession, you do not own the land; the government merely grants you a right to occupy, possess and use the land.  Possession and ownership are different legal concepts — for example, a tenant renting an apartment has legal possession of the apartment, but he does not own it. Owning a right of possession is therefore not the same as owning the land. I know this is confusing, but when you “own” a right of possession, you do not “own” the land. What you own, and can sell, is a right to occupy, possess and use the land. You do not own the land itself, which remains vested in the Nation

Now you should be able to see the reason for the lawyer’s confusion when he says that foreigners cannot ‘own’ rights of possession on islands. He is conflating rights of possession with rights of land ownership.  He is partly correct when he says that the government cannot sell island land to foreigners, although he doesn’t mention that the same applies to Panamanian citizens, and he fails to note that there is an exception if the government declares such property a special development zone. For the reasons I have just explained, however, this does not mean that foreigners cannot own rights of possession on islands — or anywhere else. There is no such law. Nor does it mean that foreigners cannot buy island property that has already been titled and is in private hands. Again, there is no such prohibition.

Still, the myth lives on — because it has gained currently among people who know very little (including some lawyers in Panama) and it is hard to kill a popular idea once it has become well-established and no one bothers to question its provenance.

The only property that foreigners cannot legally own in Panama is land with in 10 kilometers of the national borders. This is based on an old law, and those who are considering buying property near the Costa Rican border would be well-advised to take note of it.

Allen

You have probably all heard that there are Gringo prices and Panamanian prices for property. You may also have read ads that promise ‘below-market’ prices on various pieces of real estate.

Both of these ideas are non-sense, or at least misleading

Let’s start with alleged Gringo prices. The idea here is that Gringos inevitably pay one price for property and Panamanians pay another, lower, price for the same thing. That is not accurate. What actually happens is that Panamanian sellers, like sellers everywhere, want to get the most they can for their properties. They don’t care whether the buyer is a Gringo or a Panamanian. They want top dollar, naturally. However, they are also aware that many Gringos are less knowledgable about local markets than other Panamanians, and there is a wide-spread belief that all Gringos have vast secret stashes of money, so many Panamanian vendors think they should be able to get a higher price from Gringos than from Panamians.

But this doesn’t mean that a Gringo needs to pay a higher price than a local person. It just means that a Gringo has to do his homework, understand the local market –or work with someone who does — and bargain effectively. Then he will pay the same price a local Panamanian buyer would pay.

Now, about supposed below-market prices: there is no such thing. Whatever price a property sells for is, ipso facto, the market price. No one in Panama, or any where else, is going to sell you a property for less than he can get for it from someone else – ever. Period. End of Story.

The kernel of truth in the myth of below-market pricing is that some deals are better than other deals. A vendor who needs cash — what they call a ‘motivated’ seller — is more likely to sell at a lower price than a vendor who can afford to wait until he gets the price he wants. This is not a secret sauce. It is just an age-old truth about any market: when a seller of any product needs money and has to sell it quickly, the buyer has more leverage and can get a better price.

Allen

I don’t know about you, but I just read yet another real estate web site describing Panama as  “Paradise”.  I’m getting tired of it.

News Flash #1:  It’s a lie. Panama is not Paradise.

News Flash #2: There is no Paradise  — not on this planet, anyway.

I moved to Panama three and a half years ago from Toronto.  I like it here and haven’t even been back to Canada for a visit. The climate is great, the countryside is beautiful and I live for a fraction of what a similar lifestyle would cost in Canada.

The health care system is good — and cheap.

I get a lunch of rice and beans with fried chicken every day for $2.10.

There is crime in some areas of David, where I live, but I have never felt unsafe. I can walk around at midnight with no fear of being mugged — at least, I could if I ever stayed up that late, which I don’t because I am usually in bed by 10:00 PM and up at 5:00 AM.

Our home was broken into once when we first moved here and a laptop computer was stolen. Since then, I have had no problems.  There is crime everywhere. Even in Toronto, which is a very safe city, my store was broken into 3 times.

The Panamanian people are friendly, polite and courteous. But they are not, generally speaking, hardworking or efficient; nor is there a high level of honestly.  People here tend to tell you what they think you want to hear, or what will make life easier for them. They will promise to come tomorrow morning to fix your leaky toilet, but whether they show up on time — or at all — is entirely unpredictable.  On the other hand, no one ever shouts or screams at you or acts aggressively in any way.

All in all, there is some good stuff and some bad stuff in Panama — just like everywhere else on Planet Earth. Those of us who live here have weighed the good and the bad and decided that the former outweigh the latter by a wide margin.

Panama is not perfect. It is not Paradise. But it is a good place to live. And that is about the best anyone can realistically expect on this mixed-up planet.

So, my question to all those people out there determined to promote Panama as Paradise is this: why isn’t it enough to say that Panama is a beautiful country with a great climate, low cost of living and friendly people? Why isn’t it enough to say that this is a good place to live — not perfect, not Paradise, but better than anywhere else we can think of right now?

All of which is true and should be enough.

Allen

I talk to many Americans these days who are disturbed about economic and political conditions in the US.  Some of these people have lost faith in the future of America, at least for the next several years, and are thinking of moving themselves — and their money — elsewhere. If you are a member of this group, you may want to consider investing in commercial or other investment properties in Panama. I’m talking about income-producing properties, not raw land or development parcels that involve a higher degree of risk.

I am not going to tell you that commercial or other investment properties in Panama are cheap. They aren’t. And the reason they aren’t is that the Panamanian economy has thrived right through the crash in Europe and the US.  Why would you expect prices of good quality commercial or investment properties to be  at deep-discount levels when Panama hasn’t suffered the recession and near-collapse that has afflicted many other parts of the world? There are no fire sales without fires, and there haven’t been any conflagrations in Panama recently.

So, if prices are not cheap, why should anyone consider investing in Panama? Because this country  has a pro-business government; it is politically and economically stable; and the economy is growing at 6%-7% per year.  If you invest intelligently, this is a safe and profitable place for you to live and work — or retire.

Are there risks? Of course there are. As we discovered in 2008, even money market funds aren’t 100% safe. But you can buy high-quality, income-producing malls, shopping centers, and apartment and office buildings in Panama that produce solid yields at fair market prices. Or you can loan money on income producing properties, as some of our clients do.

If this sounds interesting to you, contact me at the Chiriqui Coastal office in David. We have a team of in-house lawyers and consultants who can handle your immigration visas, incorporations, and due diligence requirements so you can invest in the best properties in Panama that fit your particular investment needs.

Allen Rosen

Chiriqui Coastal Real Estate

David and Horconcitos

allen@chiriquicoastal.com

507-6447-3689 (cell)

507-774-1687 (office)