RandomGeek
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,326
Yes, it's IF IF IF IF IF IF IF. So it's an IF until the IF is resolved. Making decisions BASED on the IF and investors limiting their claims based on that IF is problematic.If the Judge believes it then its a finding and if Jxhxnn is not in court to dispute it then the Judge isn't going to take it further. Its a civil matter.
Of course they have a legal basis to consider it a ponzi. It is as simple as submitting to the judge all the shilling videos. Case dismissed.
scammers do not trust other scammers, they know betterI agree 100% it is empty but JS should have a few btc left from fake bonusses and profits. And i think JS actually did scam Marks out of 400 btc as a last present.
If you received it SARS can and will tax you, regardless of if you obtained it legally or not.@reg4812. I am not able to answer this, but in addition to legal procedure and ethics, would there not be tax implications to consider? SARS can't tax you on an imaginary balance in MTI back offices but I imagine if liquidators use that imaginary amount and pay you out based on that, then SARS would take that as income or profit. [A bit like the Cheshire cat; now it's there. Now it's gone!]
Yup thanks to the MP Finance case (AKA KRION PONZI)If you received it SARS can and will tax you, regardless of if you obtained it legally or not.
Anyone have the clip and time stamp where Cheri looked surprised at Johan when she saw he is unshaven and in a different location..
There is only one other director, even though her appointment was never communicated to CIPC and the details of her appointment has not been made public.A simple-minded question: Who now IS MTI? If it is accepted as a Pty then presumably Nerina (?) and Clynton but if FSCA finds that it was a collective, then would it be the board of directors?
Ah okay, she got very excited about it. Thought there might be some negative reaction.
There are only 2 shareholders that I am aware of and they are joint 50-50 thats Johan and ClyntonThere is only one other director, even though her appointment was never communicated to CIPC and the details of her appointment has not been made public.
There are seemingly other de facto directors, but that assertion is still untested.
We don't have access to the share register, but unless Nerina is a shareholder then she is nothing in terms of the Act.
everybody's got their knife in for herGuys look! Cheri is famous!
Was on enews! I can't belive they included that clip from YouTube!
View attachment 984388
View attachment 984390
And perhaps even that is not formalized.There are only 2 shareholders that I am aware of and they are joint 50-50 thats Johan and Clynton
That's all I see, hugeness. It's embarrassing.Pop the Blimp.
Mike Bolhuis had nothing to do with obtaining the court order.Yes this is Mr Lee and the Mike Bolhuis group that obtained the order.
Latest from Gary, CryptoAnalyzer...all scammed, deal with it, learn lessons and move on!!..problem solved, wouldn't you like that, Gary??!!!
View attachment 984604
Funny that. This guy seemed roughly the same age as me. I've never been (successfully) scammed.View attachment 984608
In other words, he is experienced in advertising and participating in ponzi schemes and learn something new every time....
/clever