"could not the "definition" of a natural person be one who was not involved during the application process?"
The definition of "natural person" is not a matter of such speculations. It means "a human being" as opposed to "a corporate entity," which for legal purposes is also a "person" just not a natural one.
"Controlling persons" or "Control Party" (they are interchangeable) also has a very specific technical definition. As does "affiliate."
It might be a good idea to look up such terms before posting your speculations. Your speculation excludes those who are included by the law and by the definition of the terms used in it.
"...PABN would be the parent company of said corporation...The controlling entity is the mother company, PABN. If this was the course of action, then shouldn't PABN appoint a board of directors, to the mother company?"
Yes, PABN is the "mother" company. But No, it does not need to appoint a board of directors to the "mother" company because it, PABN, the "mother" company, already has a board of directors. (BTW the correct term is "parent" company.)
"A name that could/would be absent from the board of directors to the parent company would be Charlie, for reasons already stated. And then, at a later date, his name could be added to the roster, without repercussions under the following conditions..."
Charlie's name would not be absent from the list submitted to the authorities (check the definitions of the terms). His name is ALREADY there so it could not be added to any roster at a later date. Not only that, but any new management of such an institution also has to be cleared by the proper authorities. Do you really think the government is so stupid to only check the original list of managers, control parties and affiliates of a banking institution? No, they do not operate that way. They are much smarter than you give them credit for being.
hope this helps
PCM
GO PABN!!! |
