Open Letter Covering a Submission made to The High Court of South Africa

Open Letter Submitted under Case Number: 15426/2021

In The High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town)

To whom it may concern,

As of today's date 17 March 2022 I wish to put on record and bring to the attention of the Honorable court certain aspects that remain undealt with to date by the liquidators and the current status quo that we have been dealing with on behalf of the investors/creditors.

For ease of reference, I will mostly refer to GetaQuid which essentially are an MTI Investor funded group. GetaQuid is a non-profit organization registered under the laws of the United Kingdom.

GetaQuid has in excess of 14,000 registered investors. 

Attorney Ruann Kruger who was party to the discussions held at court on the 2nd and 3rd March 2022 has been acting on behalf of GetaQuid has been unable to set up a meeting with the liquidators. 

Attorney Ruann Kruger requested a meeting in regard to concerns that we wish to raise with the liquidators regarding the application to have the Mirror Trading International scheme declared an illegal business practice. (Ponzi)

It is GetaQuid’s contention that in principle we can see possible advantages in aligning ourselves with some of the prayers associated with a declaration of this nature. However, are concerned that painting all the investors with such a Draconian wide-ranging brush would have a detrimental effect on their innocent rights.

It is also GetaQuid’s view that the statutory and legal rights inferred on a liquidator by their appointment currently gives them sufficient powers to pursue those entities who may have unlawfully benefited from the scheme.

GetaQuid has been approached by numerous investors who have indicated that they are comfortable to do full declarations in private to ourselves and for us to then negotiate under privilege for a repayment scheme to reimburse the Mirror Trading International liquidation estate in accordance with any excess equity they may have been privileged to.

Further, in terms of the court papers filed in March 2022, addendum PdT1 item 1.2 {b}, no access has as yet been given to the “back office data”. It is fair to say that this access has as yet not been discussed because no meetings have been forthcoming to date.

Further Item 1.3 and 1.4 of the addendum is inaccurate in as much as all claims currently being verified and discussed with the liquidators was measured on a principle of:

Total Bitcoins Invested less Total Bitcoins withdrawn = Invested Bitcoins remaining at the time of liquidation converted to fiat currency, a date chosen by the liquidators (adjusted by the value of the estate).

Items 1.5 (i) makes reference to claims that had been agreed before the first and second meetings of creditors. Here, this paragraph reflects that all claims by implication submitted before the first and second meeting of creditors were rejected as they were not read at the first and second meeting of creditors. How can this be?

Item 1.5 (ii) in this paragraph there are net loser investors who have had their claims finally agreed, how can they have had their claims finally agreed “but who have not yet submitted claim documents”. The intended meaning is unclear.

Item 2 in the addendum requires clarity on the implications as set out therein. This provision would not be accepted unless the Net losers can be ring-fenced and protected from the draconian and ill-advised terms of declaring it a Ponzi Scheme.

The above does not mean that we will not support any special powers required to pursue those entities that have illegally benefited by taking investors/creditors' bitcoin from the scheme to enrich themselves.

However, as bitcoin is regarded as an asset, holding bitcoin and allowing its natural market growth does not constitute, in my opinion, illegal enrichment. Removing or taking bitcoin from the scheme which you have not previously invested in, in this case, can be regarded as illegal enrichment as there is no evidence at present of investment growth (Net Winners). However, on the contrary, there is evidence of bad trading practices.

Item 3 in the addendum is not applicable as the whole of the addendum is brought in question because of the unfair treatment of the GetaQuid investors as detailed in Item 1.3 and 1.4 of the addendum.

GetaQuid has been informed by some of its clients that there are discrepancies between what is currently on the backend data and the client's bitcoin balance, in accordance with the formulation previously mentioned herein. It is important to note that we do agree to the method of calculation being used by the liquidators in the communication set out with the investors.

 In December 2020 many investors who heard about the difficulties associated with MTI requested payout of some or all of their bitcoin. However, during December 2020, when Mirror Trading International stopped paying out bitcoin, their back-office had authorized and cleared requested payouts, the actual transfer of bitcoin to individuals was not done. There is now a resultant marked and significant discrepancy for these investors.

As the backend facilities have not been made available as undertaken by the liquidators we are unable to comment on whether the backend has been compromised. It is also not possible for us to evaluate if there has been data manipulation of the backend and what the extent that may be. 

Because of the above I, therefore, hold that unless a documented and proper meeting can be facilitated by the liquidators to clarify the situation for all investors/creditors which has some fairness associated therewith, we reserve our right to prepare an affidavit when a full meeting has been convened with the Liquidators to try to settle and clarify the disputes.

Yours sincerely

 

 

 


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Share