Untitled design (3)

"In my opinion, the MTI Investment Scheme has created two primary classes of MTI participants - The first class being owners and promoters who were aware that the MTI Growth Figures presented to the bulk of the investors was bogus and nonexistent. Plainly fraudulent to draw in the second group,  made up of marketers and simple investors" - GetaQuid Webinar 18 Oct 2022

Group 1

The first group (Group 1) was knowingly providing fraudulent trading results to enhance the fund and draw in the second group (Group 2). Any person who had knowledge that the reported trading results were falsified to draw in Group 2 is a party to Group 1. Management and directors had a duty of care and reportability (fiduciary duty), due to their position, to insure that the trading results were reported accurately.  Not to be falsified. Group 2 made investment and marketing decisions based on the information they were provided by Group 1.

The first group (Group 1)  would bring under suspicion the owners and directors, and possibly some of the main promoters.

Group 2

The second group (Group 2) consisted of eager marketers and net loss creditors (investors). They provided the bulk of the funds. They only participated in the MTI Investment because of the bogus trading profits which they were being provided by the first group (Group 1).

Each of the two groups can and should be further broken up.

Was this an illegal business practice? Yes, as far as the first group (Group 1) is concerned.  There is absolutely no proof of any positive trading results.  On the contrary, there is only proof of substantial losses from the known trading results. The one thing that played in the favour of the scheme was the phenomenal growth in the value of the bitcoin during the life of MTI. The rest of the information distributed through the platform was bogus and designed to defraud Group 2.

Support the GetaQuid Legal Team who are presenting your Case:  >Here<

Was MTI insolvent at the time of the application of the provisional liquidation? The answer has to be yes. They could no longer pay the Bitcoin withdrawals requested by the investors. Whether that be because Johan Steynberg had run away to Brazil or the other directors and promoters had dipped their paws too deep in the pot, is to be resolved by the liquidators. All those in Group 1 are responsible for this and they should be pursued with vengeance.

Criminalising the innocent in Group 2, by declaring MTI a Ponzi scheme, will only further victimise the innocent, defrauded marketers and investors. This blanket victimisation and lack of protection of Group 2 by the liquidators, in my mind, is despicable and uncalled for, to say the least. As creditors and victims of Group 1's actions we do not want sympathy but would like to know the liquidators are actually on our side, not trying to drag us further through the mud but are protecting our interest.