Surtie Inheritance Scam

[BusyNobody]

so you want me to assume that you have some sort of portfolio. Nobody with money will be on here waiting for news commenting on everything. take your 'portfolio' to Pep or even better take it to Steinhoff. maybe in 40years you will get 1c to a Rand...

Wow. A financial advisor who highly recommends a non-investment. The funeral business must be doing pretty well if you haven’t starved by now…

Nobody with money will be on here waiting for news commenting on everything.

How certain are you of this? Have you asked every person on this forum to reveal their real identities?

Also, how are you able to accurately distinguish between someone who’s ‘waiting for news’ and someone who’s actually only on here to poke fun at people like you?

 

[BusyNobody]

believe me or no,not my issue,I'm not waiting for anything except continued hilarity and you definitely deliver that
Cope harder trolligan

I don’t get this. This guy can’t even tell that you’re making fun of him. But yet he’s offering to ‘check if my name is on the list’.

Now why would any organisation involved in litigating a matter of this magnitude provide anybody this dense with access to information like that?

 

[DEE man]

Where's the grown-ups on here. I didn't know here's kindergartens.

 

[BusyNobody]

Where's the grown-ups on here. I didn't know here's kindergartens.

You are right. I shouldn’t have made fun of the intellectually challenged. I should’ve known better…

 

[Barbarian Conan]

Are you educating a financial adviser on how money works or is this merely some nice free advice for everyone?!? And I don’t want to laugh at 2.5

I know a few financial advisors. Lets just say that while not all of them are idiots, the bar for the "financial advisor" title is pretty damn low and some of them can surely do with some more financial education.

 

[BusyNobody]

I know a few financial advisors. Lets just say that while not all of them are idiots, the bar for the "financial advisor" title is pretty damn low and some of them can surely do with some more financial education.

In my very few encounters with financial advisors, it very soon became evident that I knew more about investments than they did. All they're interested in doing is to SELL! SELL!! SELL!!!

The only reason I ever met with them was because they'd invariably be the nephew/cousin of a friend/colleague's wife. Or something like that. Generally, I'm not one to deny someone else an opportunity to progress. And if they'd proven themselves reasonably capable, I would most likely have entrusted them with something to see how they handled/managed it. But all any of these guys ever tried to do was get me to commit to policies. Very few of them offered any investment opportunities, and those who did, knew very little about them...

 

[BusyNobody]

So such a fuss was made when the GEPF lost R4bn of its value due to the actions of the PIC. Yet, people are expecting the PIC to pay out the amount of R1.35 TRILLION!!!

Public unhappy with the PIC

However, like so many other government institutions...



But, wait! There's more...



So does this mean that if a government employee's pension fund is paid out to you, that you'll end up paying it back to them? Or will the liability be spread amongst the rest of us?

As I'm typing this, I'm picturing the WhatsApp groups being flooded with questions about what a pension fund has to do with their money

 

[PsyWulf]

In my very few encounters with financial advisors, it very soon became evident that I knew more about investments than they did. All they're interested in doing is to SELL! SELL!! SELL!!!

The only reason I ever met with them was because they'd invariably be the nephew/cousin of a friend/colleague's wife. Or something like that. Generally, I'm not one to deny someone else an opportunity to progress. And if they'd proven themselves reasonably capable, I would most likely have entrusted them with something to see how they handled/managed it. But all any of these guys ever tried to do was get me to commit to policies. Very few of them offered any investment opportunities, and those who did, knew very little about them...

Yeah the whole "Financial Needs Analysis" needs a rework because an Advisor selling for only 1 company seems counterintuitive. If you don't have a comparative basket you're likely getting farked at the point-of-purchase

 

[BusyNobody]

Yeah the whole "Financial Needs Analysis" needs a rework because an Advisor selling for only 1 company seems counterintuitive. If you don't have a comparative basket you're likely getting farked at the point-of-purchase

In my experience when dealing with financial advisors, my needs weren't really taken into consideration. It was all about how they could maximise their commission.

Yeah the whole "Financial Needs Analysis" needs a rework because an Advisor selling for only 1 company seems counterintuitive. If you don't have a comparative basket you're likely getting farked at the point-of-purchase

I'm confident that I'm sufficiently covered for risk. I'm not interested in life cover and especially not funeral policies. There's also enough liquidity for my family's needs to be catered for whilst the estate is wound up. So what interests me is diversifying my portfolio and maximising my retirement fund so that I can enjoy it more. But as soon I take any additional RA's off the table, all I get from that moment on is a glazed-over blank stare

 

[BusyNobody]

So are there no new interesting and scintillating stories as to why this money hasn't been paid out yet?

#askingforafriend

 

[RandburgRottweiler]

The Surtie Inheritance Case , and the beneficiaries are fake. There is no proof of any actually agreement between the family and the beneficiaries making donations towards a settlement on this specific case.

The fund that is being "contested" is alot smaller than what it is being said.

From what I know , one of the donors and beneficiaries has made a case against the attorneys and one of the Pastors who misrepresented information to them and had fraudulent documents draw up.

I guess this whole fund and the scam attached will be coming to light soon.

 

[BusyNobody]

The Surtie Inheritance Case , and the beneficiaries are fake. There is no proof of any actually agreement between the family and the beneficiaries making donations towards a settlement on this specific case.

Let me ask this is as objectively as possible. If there's no proof of any agreement...

From what I know , one of the donors and beneficiaries has made a case against the attorneys and one of the Pastors who misrepresented information to them and had fraudulent documents draw up.

...then on what basis would this would this case be able to proceed?

From what I know , one of the donors and beneficiaries has made a case against the attorneys and one of the Pastors who misrepresented information to them and had fraudulent documents draw up.

I guess this whole fund and the scam attached will be coming to light soon.

Would it be a case of his word against theirs?



This thing was never presented as an investment opportunity, so why was there the need to falsify or manufacture any documents?

The first and third paragraphs of your post directly contradict each other...


Also...

The Surtie Inheritance Case , and the beneficiaries are fake. There is no proof of any actually agreement between the family and the beneficiaries making donations towards a settlement on this specific case.

I've never actually come across an instance where this was an actual thing

 

[Wary GOM]

@BusyNobody. The collection of monies from the public was presented as an investment - invest R1000 or whatever and receive millions in return.

 

[BusyNobody]

@BusyNobody. The collection of monies from the public was presented as an investment - invest R1000 or whatever and receive millions in return.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on that.

I started listing the reasons why this 'process' (for lack of a better word) is differentiated from an actual investment, but realised that there's not much point to it.

If any of the people who contributed ever get any money in return for what they donated (since this is what was collected - donations as part of a crowdfunding initiative), then this money would technically not be a 'return on their investment', but it would instead take the form of a 'gift payment' that they'll receive from a registered NPO. Yes - I've checked. A Section 21 company was actually registered. And the names of the people listed as directors of this company are very closely associated with the initial crowdfunding initiative.

So...if I were to run a scam of this nature (and hope to get away with it), I would never agree to, or offer to have my name linked to any company registration documents.

In my opinion (just that - an opinion), these guys would not have gone to the effort of registering this company, preparing websites, interviewing financial experts, and generally spending money on a host of other things if they didn't expect to have a reasonable prospect of receiving funds that would need to be disbursed. I'm not saying that I think they have a good chance of receiving money. That said, I don't have access to much of the information that they have at their disposal. And I'm relatively certain that regular contributors to this thread don't have that information either. Whether it's conmen like SurtieMillioNIL, or others who only come on here to shoot down the plausibility of not only payouts to 'beneficiaries', but also the validity of the entire legal matter.

So if these guys are preparing all these things in the background, then who knows? Maybe the people on this thread that have subjected themselves to ridicule on countless occasions might actually end up being the recipients of these 'gift payments' after all.

Unless of course they've been conned by SurtieMillioNIL...

 

[Eti1]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on that.

I started listing the reasons why this 'process' (for lack of a better word) is differentiated from an actual investment, but realised that there's not much point to it.

If any of the people who contributed ever get any money in return for what they donated (since this is what was collected - donations as part of a crowdfunding initiative), then this money would technically not be a 'return on their investment', but it would instead take the form of a 'gift payment' that they'll receive from a registered NPO. Yes - I've checked. A Section 21 company was actually registered. And the names of the people listed as directors of this company are very closely associated with the initial crowdfunding initiative.

So...if I were to run a scam of this nature (and hope to get away with it), I would never agree to, or offer to have my name linked to any company registration documents.

In my opinion (just that - an opinion), these guys would not have gone to the effort of registering this company, preparing websites, interviewing financial experts, and generally spending money on a host of other things if they didn't expect to have a reasonable prospect of receiving funds that would need to be disbursed. I'm not saying that I think they have a good chance of receiving money. That said, I don't have access to much of the information that they have at their disposal. And I'm relatively certain that regular contributors to this thread don't have that information either. Whether it's conmen like SurtieMillioNIL, or others who only come on here to shoot down the plausibility of not only payouts to 'beneficiaries', but also the validity of the entire legal matter.

So if these guys are preparing all these things in the background, then who knows? Maybe the people on this thread that have subjected themselves to ridicule on countless occasions might actually end up being the recipients of these 'gift payments' after all.

Unless of course they've been conned by SurtieMillioNIL...

Pastors, "board", Lawyers and "forensic investigator": Give us money to help "find the money", have meetings with Absa, litigate in multiple courts, have demonstrations outside Absa offices (lol)...and in return, you will receive a slice of the payout.

Believers: Sure, take my money.

Things were said and documents produced by various people to convince believers to part with their money so as to receive a return later. That is an investment, however you want to dress it up.

If all of the supporting evidence was BS, if lies were told to convince people to give money, then well...yeah that's a crime.

 

[BusyNobody]

Pastors, "board", Lawyers and "forensic investigator": Give us money to help "find the money", have meetings with Absa, litigate in multiple courts, have demonstrations outside Absa offices (lol)...and in return, you will receive a slice of the payout.

Believers: Sure, take my money.

Things were said and documents produced by various people to convince believers to part with their money so as to receive a return later. That is an investment, however you want to dress it up.

If all of the supporting evidence was BS, if lies were told to convince people to give money, then well...yeah that's a crime.

Look, what I posted earlier is based on information that was presented to me in a manner that is no way connected to this thread, as well as factual information that is freely available for public consumption. To be honest, all of the above has granted me a fresh perspective on the matter in its entirety.

As mentioned on numerous occasions, I do not stand to benefit financially from any payout. I therefore have nothing to gain from advocating either side of this 'debate'. This is why I remain a neutral party in this matter.

However, my perception of this matter differs slightly from what it was when I was first introduced to it. This difference in perception was brought about by the facts that I myself perused, and was in no way influenced by any person's opinion, or any agenda that was driven either on this forum, or any person I know whom I discussed this matter with in person.

My perspective on this matter was outlined in my previous post.

You seem to have responded with a preconceived perception of your own. Despite all the information that has become available, your stance does not seem to have changed since your original post.

I'm not fighting you in any way. It is certainly your prerogative to remain sceptical. I myself will not be convinced until real funds are actually disbursed.

But have you seriously not entertained the possibility that you might actually receive a payout along with every other person who has contributed financially to this thing? Or have you ruled out this possibility completely?

 

[BusyNobody]

But have you seriously not entertained the possibility that you might actually receive a payout along with every other person who has contributed financially to this thing? Or have you ruled out this possibility completely?

This is an actual question, and not rhetorical...

 

[Eti1]

This is an actual question, and not rhetorical...

I will answer it anyway.

No, the ENTIRE thing is a scam.

99% sure.

And that HAS changed, since previously I was about 70% sure.

 

[BusyNobody]

I will answer it anyway.

No, the ENTIRE thing is a scam.

99% sure.

And that HAS changed, since previously I was about 70% sure.

Stated with the confidence of someone who has secured irrefutable proof of his assertion, and is not merely stating his opinion or reiterating some of the common conjecture contained in this thread quite vociferously…

 

[Wary GOM]

I too don't have any skin in this game but am both interested and angered by the way it is playing out.

You seem to have responded with a preconceived perception of your own. Despite all the information that has become available, your stance does not seem to have changed since your original post.

Although your reply wasn't related to my post, it is relevant that my standpoint has indeed not changed. HOWEVER, my standpoint was and is that there are two "games" here. I do think (certainly opinion, because facts have been so fogged by the scam) that there is a legitimate issue with the estate of the original Art Surtie and that some beneficiaries have not received their dues. Seizing those two ABSA accounts was related to this part of the narrative being followed on this thread. As I see it, this is a completely legitimate purpose for a crowd funding and other sources of donations. What hasn't any where been made clear, to me at least, is how these accounts were linked to the PIC investments of A Surtie.

Then there is the narrative around the bonds and the PIC accounts. As I understand what I have read here and elsewhere, this is only peripherally related to the ABSA accounts and might also be only weakly linked to the real inheritance, albeit part of the Surtie estate. Until a settlement on this is reached (BORING!) or better, a juicy court case to follow, I don't have anything but a strong opinion that this is the cource and substance of numerous scams and false promises of returns to donors/investor/desperate, financially challenged folks.

I'm not fighting you in any way. It is certainly your prerogative to remain sceptical. I myself will not be convinced until real funds are actually disbursed.

But have you seriously not entertained the possibility that you might actually receive a payout along with every other person who has contributed financially to this thing? Or have you ruled out this possibility completely?

IF there is a payout from PIC then I will have to admit that I have been wrong about the scam and perhaps should have invested/donated. I have no regrets whatsoever about having considered this something that should be criticised whenever possible, because to me it IS a scam with no hope of payouts. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it certainly sounds like a duck to me.