Surtie Inheritance Scam

[Lionel Edward]

It is not postponed, judgement will be given in the next 3 months

Amen to that WOW WOW waiting for a nother 3 month will not kill me wow

 

[ANOther Clone]

Okay. So let's look at this as logically as possible:

The estate is trying to claim a debt of R1.35 trillion from the PIC, which stems from the amount of $36 billion that was deposited into a specific bank account as an inheritance for ART Surtie in 1985.

On the surface, it seems fairly straightforward. But in 1985, the richest person in the US (and the world apparently) was Sam Walton - the founder of Walmart, with a net worth of a mere $2.8 billion.








Also, Anglo American is worth $59.68 billion today








$36 billion in 1985 adjusted for inflation is in excess of $101 billion today.

Just glancing at this, ART Surtie's estate claims that his inheritance (which arose from diamond mining interests) was more than the value of Anglo American at the time he was meant to receive it? Also, if he had received the inheritance, it would have made him 12 times richer than Sam Walton?

Forgive me if I'm sceptical, but this does just not compute. I'm not saying that the estate is not entitled to receiving the inheritance that was withheld...but the amount that they're claiming?

 

[Just No Name ;)]

Okay. So let's look at this as logically as possible:

The estate is trying to claim a debt of R1.35 trillion from the PIC, which stems from the amount of $36 billion that was deposited into a specific bank account as an inheritance for ART Surtie in 1985.

On the surface, it seems fairly straightforward. But in 1985, the richest person in the US (and the world apparently) was Sam Walton - the founder of Walmart, with a net worth of a mere $2.8 billion.




View attachment 1465307



Also, Anglo American is worth $59.68 billion today




View attachment 1465313



$36 billion in 1985 adjusted for inflation is in excess of $101 billion today.

Just glancing at this, ART Surtie's estate claims that his inheritance (which arose from diamond mining interests) was more than the value of Anglo American at the time he was meant to receive it? Also, if he had received the inheritance, it would have made him 12 times richer than Sam Walton?

Forgive me if I'm sceptical, but this does just not compute. I'm not saying that the estate is not entitled to receiving the inheritance that was withheld...but the amount that they're claiming?

Agree with you on the basis of looking at it this way. But no one was actually ever contesting the amount it seems. ‍♂

 

[ANOther Clone]

Agree with you on the basis of looking at it this way. But no one was actually ever contesting the amount it seems. ‍♂

I never said the amount of the claim was/is under dispute.

The point that you clearly aren't able to grasp is that this matter has been put on the High Court roll, and there's an expectation that this incredulous claim will be entertained.

The open letters and the like date back several years, and yet nobody has really paid much attention to them apart from blatant conspiracy theorists, and those individuals expecting a payout of some sort.

If any payout materialises, it won't be anything near what is expected.

The saddest part (for me) about all of this, is that the people on this forum (and those not) who've "invested" money in this farce have absolutely no understanding of the legal processes that have to be followed. They receive "updates" regarding the details of the case, and a very small number of them are actually able to grasp the content. There are discussions about details that relate to the case that were explained to them verbally. Almost every recount of these details differs to a varying degree. This is a clear indication that very few of them understand what they're talking about, and are merely reciting what they've been told to the best of their ability.

The reality is that they're being lied to. Nearly four years ago (in this thread), a few of them were discussing when payouts would happen, since the money was received and "the board" is processing and finalising the payouts. How could any payouts have been due four years ago if this matter is still being contested in court? It hasn't even reached trial stage!

In December, I spoke to a guy (at an extended family get together, so an acquaintance only) who paid R20 000 when money for legal fees was collected at the church he belongs to. This guy has very little of material value, but somehow managed to scrape this money together in expectation of a multi-million Rand payout. He went on telling me that the money should have been paid out three years ago, but because of apparent in-fighting, it's been delayed several times.

I questioned the plausibility of his story, and asked him to explain to me how there could be in-fighting over paying out money that they weren't in possession of. This amusing discussion went on for quite some time. What I gathered from this, is that he'd been indoctrinated to the extent that he refuses to listen to reason.

So, I wasn't questioning the amount of the claim, I was merely trying to bring perspective to the reality of the situation

 

[ANOther Clone]

For the sake of transparency, I want to add that I contributed to these legal fees several years ago. This was long before this Surtie matter became entrenched in so many people's lives. Honestly, I don't even recall if there was a promise of a payout at the time. It was presented in a way that the contribution would assist a family bordering on destitution to approach the courts to access their inheritance. It felt like the right thing to do at the time, so I gave a small amount.

I left that church just before one of the pastors was arrested for allegedly running a ponzi scheme, but a friend of mine who's still linked to that church informed me that the donation I made was for the Surtie court case - and that there have been several collections since.

I'm not expecting anything in return, I freely gave under the impression that I'm contributing to a worthy cause. But I started suspecting a long time ago that I might have been duped

 

[PsyWulf]

But no one was actually ever contesting the amount it seems. ‍♂

As noted previously,the bank has consistently targeted the simplest legal defenses. Some things are just ridiculous enough to be hilarious if it hit the court

 

[ANOther Clone]

As noted previously,the bank has consistently targeted the simplest legal defenses. Some things are just ridiculous enough to be hilarious if it hit the court

Personally, I'm actually rooting for this matter to reach trial stage. I'm extremely interested to see what evidence is presented.

Either the (hopefully suitably educated) legal team has been convinced that the evidence gathered is compelling enough to warrant pursuing...or the (hopefully suitably educated) legal team is merely milking this for as much inflated legal fees as they possibly can

 

[PsyWulf]

Personally, I'm actually rooting for this matter to reach trial stage. I'm extremely interested to see what evidence is presented.

Same

Personally i'm positively giddy to see what happens when Koorbanaly's testimony on how they "traced the funds in the bank" using Netstat on a Bank Computer in the basement plays out
A little slice of what Netstat actually does:

In computing, netstat (network statistics) is a command-line network utility that displays network connections for Transmission Control Protocol (both incoming and outgoing), routing tables, and a number of network interface (network interface controller or software-defined network interface) and network protocol statistics. It is available on Unix, Plan 9, Inferno, and Unix-like operating systems including macOS, Linux, Solaris and BSD. It is also available on IBM OS/2 and on Microsoft Windows NT-based operating systems including Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8 and Windows 10.

It is used for finding problems in the network and to determine the amount of traffic on the network as a performance measurement.[1] On Linux this program is mostly obsolete, although still included in many distributions.

Rivetting hacker-man stuff

Either the (hopefully suitably educated) legal team has been convinced that the evidence gathered is compelling enough to warrant pursuing..

The ragtag collection of floater legal eagles with their CC-esque lawfirms

.or the (hopefully suitably educated) legal team is merely milking this for as much inflated legal fees as they possibly can

I suspect this is the actual goal

 

[ANOther Clone]

I still don't know what the purpose of the appearance was - whether it was to appeal the previous judgement where the exceptions were upheld, or whether they've amended the particulars of claim, but not that they've made another court appearance, I'm waiting for the nearly obligatory "almost their gyz pymt cumin soon" to pop up out of nowehere and for no apparent reason

 

[ANOther Clone]

Same

Personally i'm positively giddy to see what happens when Koorbanaly's testimony on how they "traced the funds in the bank" using Netstat on a Bank Computer in the basement plays out
A little slice of what Netstat actually does:

To be fair, they did request all of the "digital evidence" below:

 

[Thugscub]

When did this whole circus start?
What year?
If a will is left " interstate" it normally does not take years and years and years to sort out.
Methinks its a load of BS.

 

[PsyWulf]

To be fair, they did request all of the "digital evidence" below:

Yes,specifically this relates to the hackerman-style "tracing" of the funds

Good catch,I forgot about the "Honeypot" that lead them to a wrong part of the building where they got trapped in a "Padded Cell System" with fake balances
Easy to forget the mass of ridiculousness i've had to expose my eyeballs to

 

[Wary GOM]

@Gupta: Please could you help me with the answer to my question about the "Search & Seize" order of 22 December 2022 which you posted?

 

[Wary GOM]

For the sake of transparency, I want to add that I contributed to these legal fees several years ago. This was long before this Surtie matter became entrenched in so many people's lives. Honestly, I don't even recall if there was a promise of a payout at the time. It was presented in a way that the contribution would assist a family bordering on destitution to approach the courts to access their inheritance. It felt like the right thing to do at the time, so I gave a small amount.

I left that church just before one of the pastors was arrested for allegedly running a ponzi scheme, but a friend of mine who's still linked to that church informed me that the donation I made was for the Surtie court case - and that there have been several collections since.

I'm not expecting anything in return, I freely gave under the impression that I'm contributing to a worthy cause. But I started suspecting a long time ago that I might have been duped

Sorry to hear that but glad you did not continue with that church. At the start there was the story about Surtie Richards and financial difficulty, so the initial requests for donations SEEMED completely reasonable.

IMO crooked pastors are the lowest of the low - using their assumed right to speak for God, they deserve a special place in Hell.

 

[Wary GOM]

I never said the amount of the claim was/is under dispute.

The point that you clearly aren't able to grasp is that this matter has been put on the High Court roll, and there's an expectation that this incredulous claim will be entertained.

The open letters and the like date back several years, and yet nobody has really paid much attention to them apart from blatant conspiracy theorists, and those individuals expecting a payout of some sort.

If any payout materialises, it won't be anything near what is expected.

The saddest part (for me) about all of this, is that the people on this forum (and those not) who've "invested" money in this farce have absolutely no understanding of the legal processes that have to be followed. They receive "updates" regarding the details of the case, and a very small number of them are actually able to grasp the content. There are discussions about details that relate to the case that were explained to them verbally. Almost every recount of these details differs to a varying degree. This is a clear indication that very few of them understand what they're talking about, and are merely reciting what they've been told to the best of their ability.

The reality is that they're being lied to. Nearly four years ago (in this thread), a few of them were discussing when payouts would happen, since the money was received and "the board" is processing and finalising the payouts. How could any payouts have been due four years ago if this matter is still being contested in court? It hasn't even reached trial stage!

In December, I spoke to a guy (at an extended family get together, so an acquaintance only) who paid R20 000 when money for legal fees was collected at the church he belongs to. This guy has very little of material value, but somehow managed to scrape this money together in expectation of a multi-million Rand payout. He went on telling me that the money should have been paid out three years ago, but because of apparent in-fighting, it's been delayed several times.

I questioned the plausibility of his story, and asked him to explain to me how there could be in-fighting over paying out money that they weren't in possession of. This amusing discussion went on for quite some time. What I gathered from this, is that he'd been indoctrinated to the extent that he refuses to listen to reason.

So, I wasn't questioning the amount of the claim, I was merely trying to bring perspective to the reality of the situation

A few points on your very clear post.

There really was in-fighting amongst people, with different degree of relationship to Mr Surtie, who claimed rights to the estate. This was reported some years ago in the press. Adding credence to this is the pro parte Decision of 22 December in the Bellville Court. Clearly there has been money in some individuals' accounts to which Rehana Surtie has claim.

You are absolutely correct that many posters appear to not have a clue about the details even when presented on a plate. However, my take on this, backed in the last few days by the fact that @Gupta was not clear about what claims were made in the 22 December case, is that this is wilful misdirection to keep donations coming in. I have said a number of times that there are two issues being conflated by many here. There is a real claim to an inheritance and there are claims by any number of scammers who maintain that the true beneficiaries will pay donors to the various pastoors' coffers.

 

[ANOther Clone]

A few points on your very clear post.

There really was in-fighting amongst people, with different degree of relationship to Mr Surtie, who claimed rights to the estate. This was reported some years ago in the press. Adding credence to this is the pro parte Decision of 22 December in the Bellville Court. Clearly there has been money in some individuals' accounts to which Rehana Surtie has claim.

You are absolutely correct that many posters appear to not have a clue about the details even when presented on a plate. However, my take on this, backed in the last few days by the fact that @Gupta was not clear about what claims were made in the 22 December case, is that this is wilful misdirection to keep donations coming in. I have said a number of times that there are two issues being conflated by many here. There is a real claim to an inheritance and there are claims by any number of scammers who maintain that the true beneficiaries will pay donors to the various pastoors' coffers.

In response, I'd like to firstly point out that the "press" you refer to in your post is actually second-tier media platforms - on websites that are now mostly obsolete, based on the fact that they haven't posted any new material in the last few years. Not exactly reliable sources of information.

The ex parte application on 15 December in Bellville was on behalf of the estate. Not Rehana Surtie. In her personal capacity, she's not really entitled to access any of the money due to the estate- except as a beneficiary. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that this is possibly an attempt to see how much is in the ABSA account (supposedly - it hasn't been proven in court yet) linked to the estate.

Everything I've mentioned in this post so far is based on what I've read in court documents. This entire matter seems to be a hot topic of discussion amongst so many, but like that broken telephone, the information bandied about is highly unreliable. The information I procured from the court documents is readily and freely available, and contradicts most of the narrative doing the rounds.

I tend to agree that there are quite possibly people engaging on this very forum who are perpetuating the collecting of legal fees for what would seem for their own benefit.

Unfortunately for those hundreds/thousands of people who've contributed over the years, if there's any money that is distributed to them (whenever or even if this ever happens), it will most likely be a lot less than they're anticipating

 

[Wary GOM]

In response, I'd like to firstly point out that the "press" you refer to in your post is actually second-tier media platforms - on websites that are now mostly obsolete, based on the fact that they haven't posted any new material in the last few years. Not exactly reliable sources of information.

Oh agreed 100% that these were second-tier platforms for the most part.

The ex parte application on 15 December in Bellville was on behalf of the estate. Not Rehana Surtie. In her personal capacity, she's not really entitled to access any of the money due to the estate- except as a beneficiary. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that this is possibly an attempt to see how much is in the ABSA account (supposedly - it hasn't been proven in court yet) linked to the estate.

Oh indeed the case in December was on behalf of the estate, but nonetheless, she is the primary beneficiary.

Perfectly correct that this seems a way of actually getting firm evidence of just how much money there really is.

Everything I've mentioned in this post so far is based on what I've read in court documents. This entire matter seems to be a hot topic of discussion amongst so many, but like that broken telephone, the information bandied about is highly unreliable. The information I procured from the court documents is readily and freely available, and contradicts most of the narrative doing the rounds.

I tend to agree that there are quite possibly people engaging on this very forum who are perpetuating the collecting of legal fees for what would seem for their own benefit.

Yes, and posters on this forum are a drop in the ocean of the people being influenced by various pastors and their followers.

Unfortunately for those hundreds/thousands of people who've contributed over the years, if there's any money that is distributed to them (whenever or even if this ever happens), it will most likely be a lot less than they're anticipating

Apart from some pleasure when reading some posts, trying to point out clear scamming and "fake news", are my reasons for still being here.

 

[ANOther Clone]

I heard that correspondence was issued by the legal team after the last court appearance with an update regarding the case. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm already willing to bet that most of those who have don't understand what it means...

 

[Kroonjaager]

I heard that correspondence was issued by the legal team after the last court appearance with an update regarding the case. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm already willing to bet that most of those who have don't understand what it means...

Yes Mister Know It All. It seems that you are really underestimating the intelligence of the so called "investors" that is part of this supposedly "scam". With your intelligence please explain what transpired at the last court sitting in lay man's terms.

 

[PsyWulf]

Yes Mister Know It All. It seems that you are really underestimating the intelligence of the so called "investors" that is part of this supposedly "scam". With your intelligence please explain what transpired at the last court sitting in lay man's terms.

Unironically proving the point