Two Masterminds in Last Ditch Effort to Stall Liquidation of MTI

Two Masterminds in Last Ditch Effort to Stall Liquidation of MTI

In a last-ditch attempt to stall the sale of Mirror Trading International (MTI) assets, two masterminds of the collapsed bitcoin Ponzi scheme have warned investors that liquidating the investment company will likely result in them being asked to return all withdrawn bitcoins. Opposition to Attempts at Declaring MTI a Ponzi Scheme

In a court filing that opposes attempts to declare MTI “an illegal business,” Clynton and Cheri Marks insist that such a step will in fact cause investors to “forfeit everything to the state.”

As the Mybroadband report reveals, the Marks’ latest opposing application was filed after a South African court postponed ruling on an intervening application to September 8, 2021. The intervening application, which seeks to have MTI labeled a scam, was filed by liquidators soon after the final liquidation was granted by the Cape Town High Court.

In pushing back against the liquidators’ intervening application, the Markses warn MTI members that they will not be able to claim back their bitcoin contributions should the investment company be declared an illegal scheme. In addition, such a declaration would result in MTI investors being treated as debtors. This scenario according to the Markses, leaves the liquidators as well as the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) as MTI’s creditors.

Meanwhile, in addition to warning MTI investors, the two masterminds’ counter application appears to target the FSCA over its reluctance to act against South Africa’s latest high profile bitcoin Ponzi scheme, Africrypt. After reports emerged that Africrypt directors Raees and Ameer Cajee had disappeared with investor funds, the FSCA issued a statement which suggested it lacked jurisdiction over cryptocurrency-based schemes. Yet in the MTI case, the FSCA still took action despite it being another cryptocurrency-based scheme. Support for Counter Application

As proceedings against MTI slowly come to a conclusion, the Markses, who had their residence raided by regulators prior to MTI’s collapse, are becoming increasingly desperate in their opposition to the liquidation process. However, as the report points out, they may catch a lucky break as some of the people who helped secure the final liquidation against MTI are now opposed to the liquidators’ intervening application.

It is this new support that appears to have emboldened the Markses to launch their long-shot counter-application, an excerpt from their court filing suggests. In the counter application, the Markses said: While we sympathise with the amount of work the liquidators find themselves facing to wrap up MTI, we cannot allow for them to take shortcuts by seeking orders that will create scenarios where our members’ interests and right to oppose any matter surrounding their personal claims are put at risk.

As the Mybroadband report notes, the FSCA had not given its response to Clynton and Cheri Marks’ claims at the time of writing. It now remains to be seen if the Marks’ counter application is enough to stop the court from agreeing with the liquidators.

Do you agree with Clynton and Cheri Marks’ counter application? Tell us what you think in the comments section below. South Africa Bitcoin Heist: Court Grants Liquidators Authority to Track Missing Africrypt Investor Funds REGULATION | 1 day ago Indian Government Clarifies Status of Cryptocurrency Trading, Regulation, Investor Protection REGULATION | 2 days ago Tags in this story Africrypt, Cheri Marks, Clynton Marks, FSCA, Mirror Trading International (MTI), MTI bitcoin scam, MTI liquidation, Ponzi Scheme

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Read disclaimerShow comments