The recent February 4th second meeting of MTI creditors was covered in more detail by an “MTI Circular.”
I wasn’t too impressed after reading an initial report on the meeting and seeing it.
Mirror Trading International was put into insolvency in late 2020 rather than being taken down by the police and the fraudsters behind it being apprehended.
Regarding victim recompense, not much has changed more than a year later.
Court-appointed liquidators issued a “circular to creditors” on February 11th to resolve this.
The liquidators were subjected to false accusations. Since this meeting wasn’t the appropriate setting to address all of those concerns, Mr. Tintinger spoke on our behalf and gave a basic response while also emphasizing that the liquidators will react to any inquiries from reputable creditors and have an open-door policy in that respect.
Sounds good, but
During the discussion, Mr. Tintinger underlined that the liquidators are cautious when speaking with groups of creditors or individuals claiming to represent groups of people when there are competing interests, or when there are winners and losers in the same group.
A single communication channel would address the issue of net-winners and losers being combined, which I believe is bad.
The liquidators aim to make sure that the genuine creditors of MTI are taken care of and that their interests are not swayed or overridden by group leaders who might not share those interests.
The MTI investors would need to be verified, something the liquidators appear reluctant or unable to accomplish for whatever reason.
Instead, they are shifting the blame on others.
Even if a creditor is a member of a group, the liquidators nonetheless urge creditors to properly identify their position as creditors and ensure that everyone in the group has the same interests.
The circular reads on the denial of victim claims;
After the second meeting, it was misconstrued that the liquidators were rejecting every creditor demand.
This is merely untrue and more misleading material that is being disseminated to deter legitimate creditors from proving their claims.
I recall hearing the Master of the Court dismiss all victim allegations as “illegible,” as he put it.
The liquidators receive claims from victims, who then bring them to the court. Liquidators should be severely criticized for messing up the claims procedure, even if the Master of the Court is not acting abnormally.
They should also be held accountable if they submit claims that they are aware will be denied (for any reason).
Liquidators are responsible for collecting claims, doing some type of validation, and then presenting those claims to the court. They must also give net-losers explicit information on what is necessary.
As an alternative, you have this foolishness, where liquidators concede they don’t know what the court wants but urge people to make claims.
The liquidators have received considerable guidance on the structure of creditors’ claims in MTI, according to Mr. Tintinger, who also informed the Master that it would be appropriate for the liquidators to ask the High Court for guidelines on how to advise creditors to formulate their claims.
The application is currently being polished.
Investors are continually being urged by the liquidators to file claims with the estate.
Given that it has been more than a year, I can’t view this as anything other than a total breach of the duty of care owed to the victims of MTI.
However, why are these claims being presented for rejection in the first place? Liquidators do indicate that they intend to “scrutinize” claims by any instructions they receive from the court.
Talk about putting oneself in danger.
Liquidators’ official confirmation of the fate of the 8000 BTC they located in July is another setback for MTI victims.
The liquidators concluded that they lack a legitimate basis to assert ownership or the value of the pertinent bitcoin after doing substantial more research.
Details? Nah. You only receive that.
Liquidators announced at the time of the 8000 BTC announcement that they
believed they would be able to find more of the 29,000 bitcoins that are thought to have entered MTI.
I’m going to take a risk and forecast there won’t be any further rebound since there have been no follow-up announcements.
The assertion that liquidators have not “received one penny yet” is encouraging for MTI victims.
Good. I hope it continues that way until significant action is taken.
Johann Steynberg’s situation is another intriguing aspect of the study.
The liquidators consider Steynberg’s arrest to be a very positive step and expect that he will be extradited and prosecuted as soon as feasible.
Last week in Cape Town, the liquidators had a very good high-level meeting with the investigating and prosecution agencies and were given reassurance that global procedures are still ongoing.
We are unable to discuss the process more at this time so as not to jeopardize these procedures, but you can be confident that we will investigate every possibility.
This implies that Steynberg may yet be sent to South Africa. I had hoped for the United States.
It all depends on which countries issued the international arrest warrant, which we still don’t know for some reason.
You might not be aware of this, but Steynberg and his associates misled investors and the FSCA by claiming that MTI’s Bitcoin had been transferred to a new trading platform called Trade 300 after the FSCA had raided MTI in July 2020 and issued a warning letter.
Steynberg developed Trade 300 as a hoax.
Despite the hoax, Ulrich Roux, who was representing MTI at the time, stated in a letter in October 2020 that Trade 300 received 16 444 bitcoin in four transfers from July 21 to July 24, 2020.
Attorney Roux received information from the management of MTI that was false and fraudulent to investors and the FSCA. He subsequently shared this information with the public.
Steynberg was he acting alone?
He concentrated on the daily trading simulation performed by the bot. He also paid attention to the fluctuations of bitcoin.
The MTI machine was run by Cheri Marks, Clinton Marks, and their immediate family (all previously associated with spectacularly failed schemes, including BTC Global). They proclaimed the daily positive trades as facts and actively discouraged participants from heeding the wise and transparent advice and warnings provided by the regulator, the FSCA, and various other very vocal critics.
Weekly proceeds were split between Clinton Marks and Steynberg.
Losers shouldn’t be duped into thinking that the collapse was just the result of poor trade. It was never.
It was a scam that was run by promoters and top investors to regularly siphon out bitcoin from later investors and the lower tiers.
Let’s hope that the Marks family is ultimately targeted by the prosecution. They were the ones in charge and who benefited the most.
The Marks family has remained at large in South Africa after the bankruptcy of Mirror Trading International in December 2020.
Speaking of the Marks, it is gratifying to see that Clinton Marks’ absurd claim that MTI did not collapse has been refuted.
With the evidence now at their disposal, our forensic team has determined that the disparity between bitcoin deposited and removed was at least 10800 bitcoin.
MTI claimed to investors that it still has 18 700 bitcoin in its wallets as of October 17, 2020, according to its data.
Approximately 22,000 bitcoins were anticipated to be in MTI when it exploded in December 2020, according to MTI’s records. Only 1282 bitcoin have been recovered yet by the liquidators.
This was not the fault of Steynberg and his associates; rather, it was a coincidence that FX Choice blocked the wallet in which these coins were stored.
All other bitcoin were either paid to investors who had already withdrawn bitcoin or were either stolen.
Steynberg, the Marks family, and other net winners have stolen.
All participants who took use of MTI’s compensation arrangements are considered to be quasi-accomplices and will be made public.
The people who lost money have a right to know who illegally profited from the plan at their cost.
Details will be provided to the MTI creditors as the legal action against the people progresses.
In the future, the High Court will decide if MTI was an “illegal plan.”
The liquidators are optimistic on their end.
Whether or not the High Court is willing to give the declaratory ruling, MTI was a big fraudulent swindle, and this will continue to be the case.
If the High Court were not willing to deem the plan unconstitutional at this time, it does not necessarily follow that MTI is thereafter regarded as a legal scheme.
Simply put, it will mean that each time the liquidators rely on that information in a recovery procedure, they will need to demonstrate its illegality.
Let’s hope that doesn’t come to pass.
On March 2nd, the High Court is expected to convene a hearing to discuss MTI’s legal standing.