Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented - 5 of 5

Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented - 5 of 5

by Gilbert Muponda on Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 4:35pm


The fact that Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation continue to mislead investing public and regulatory authorities about the legality of thier illegal action shows fraudulent intent on the part of Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation.



At law generally Innocent misrepresentation (Derry v. Peek)occurs when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true.Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation have been advised and warned that their take over over Century/cfx Bank was illegal and irregular and is being challenged in high court under high court case HC-6244-04.Below is a related and relevated case which Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation must read ,study and learn from.



"The case of Invertec Limited v. De Mol Holdings BV (1) and Henricus Albertus De Mol (2) provides useful guidance on the circumstances in which a purchaser can make a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation under a share sale and purchase agreement. Invertec (the claimant) and De Mol Holdings BV (DMH) entered into an agreement (SPA) for the sale and purchase of the entire issued share capital of Volante Public Transportation Interior Systems (Volante). Mr De Mol was a director of DMH and its sole shareholder.



Although the transaction only completed on 6 October 2005, Invertec had, by the end of October 2005, injected a further £270,000 into the company to keep it afloat and by the end of December 2005, this figure had increased to £532,000. Volante was eventually placed in to administration in December 2006. Invertec commenced proceedings claiming that it had been induced to enter into the transaction by a number of fraudulent misrepresentations made by DMH and Mr De Mol which subsequently became warranties in the SPA.



The alleged fraudulent misrepresentations were as follows:Volante's management accounts for July and August 2005. Invertec alleged that, contrary to DMH's warranty, the monthly management accounts disclosed to them were not prepared in good faith nor on bases consistent with the management accounts for the year ended 30 June 2005.



The High Court upheld this claim on the basis that Mr De Mol and his financial advisor, Mr De Wit, had clearly altered the bases of the July and August accounts by re-classifying 'factored' sales as 'in-house' sales - the effect of which was that Volante's results were more consistent with the sales projections in the budget provided to Invertec.



No disclosure as to the reclassification of sales in the management accounts was made to Invertec.Volante's solvency. In the SPA, DMH warranted that Volante was not unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Invertec claimed that in fact, Volante was unable to pay its debts as at 6 October 2005, that DMH knew this before entering into the SPA and that such warranty was false and dishonestly made.



DMH contended that the true construction of the warranty was that it was "merely a warranty that it has not been proved to the satisfaction of a court that Volante is unable to pay its debts as they fall due". The judge disagreed and in upholding Invertec's claim, stated that such a construction "would substantially deprive the warranty of effect and would make no commercial sense".Volante's corporation tax liability with regard to the financial year ended June 2004.



DMH had represented that this sum was lower than it actually was and had failed to make any disclosure against the relevant warranty in the SPA. The judge upheld the claim on the basis that the representations made by DMH that Volante was up-to-date with its corporation tax payments were false and dishonestly made.A contract with one of Volante's customers, Alstom, was loss making and contrary to DMH's warranty that it was not party to any loss-making contracts.



This claim was rejected by the judge on the basis that DMH had disclosed that this contract had been historically unprofitable and would continue to be so unless its terms were re-negotiated.In determining damages, the judge rejected DMH's argument that claims framed by reference to warranties in an SPA should be treated as a breach of contract only and not as misrepresentation. Importantly, the aggregate liability cap of DMH in respect of claims under the SPA (which was limited to the amount of consideration received by them) was held not to apply as there had been deliberate concealment by both DMH and Mr De Mol.



As such, Invertec were entitled to be put back into the position it would have been had the false representations not been made - Mr De Mol was ordered to pay £1,512,113 in damages which represented the initial consideration under the SPA and also a further £532,000 and €216,000 in respect of the successful solvency and corporation tax claims. The rationale for Mr De Mol being personally liable for Invertec's loss was that the fraudulent misrepresentations were largely made by him; he was the sole negotiator for DMH and had signed the transaction documents.



Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation Directors should be aware that even if they are not the selling party to an agreement, any false representations or warranties which they make to a potential purchaser and which have been made knowingly, without belief in their truth, or recklessly, may result in them being personally liable to the purchaser for fraudulent misrepresentation.As was the case above, a successful claim for fraudulent misrepresentation will often serve to extinguish the operation of any limitation of liability clauses negotiated in an agreement.



As such, the importance of the disclosure process in a sale and purchase transaction cannot be overstated; honest, accurate and detailed disclosures will either prevent a fraudulent misrepresentation or warranty claim being made or, as was the case with the Alstom contract above, provide the basis of a successful defence to a warranty claim.Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation must be advised of their continued misrepresentation to shareholders,regulators and investing public constitutes a serious offence."

Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented - 4 of 5

by Gilbert Muponda on Tuesday, November 23, 2010 at 10:21pm

At law generally Innocent misrepresentation (Derry v. Peek)occurs when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true.Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation have been advised and warned that their take over over Century/cfx Bank was illegal and irregular and is being challenged in high court under high court case HC-6244-04.



The fact that Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation continue to mislead investing public and regulatory authorities about the legality of thier illgal action shows fraudulent intent on the part of Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation.



In this article I have borrowed liberally from Wikipedia on seeking to unpack the illegal actions by Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation .



Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation actions on Century/CFX Bank leaves a lot to be desired especially given how they have tried to conceal Interfin's illegal and corrupt take over of Century/CFX Bank.In any business it is normal to make a mistake in terms of judgement or at times to act without full information.Inititally Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation could be excused on the assumption that they were not aware of what was happening on the illegal take over of Century/CFX Bank.



Instance of false statement where (1) the party making the statement is aware that it is false or disregards the possibility of it being false, (2) the party making the statement does so to induce another party to enter into a contract, and (3) the other party enters the contract as a result of the statement and consequently suffers a loss.Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are making false declarations to mislead investing public and regulatory bodies.



Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when one makes representation with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false. An action for fraudulent misrepresentation allows for a remedy of damages and rescission. One can also sue for fraudulent misrepresentation in a tort action. Fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly



According to Wikipedia Negligent misrepresentation at common law occurs when the defendant carelessly makes a representation while having no reasonable basis to believe it to be true. This type of misrepresentation is relatively new and was introduced to allow damages in situations where neither a collateral contract nor fraud is found. It was first seen in the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] A.C. 465 where the court found that a statement made negligently that was relied upon can be actionable in tort.



"Distortion of FactA representor may make a statement which prima facie is technically true; however this may tell only half the story. If a statement of fact is made but the representor fails to include information which would significantly alter the interpretation of this fact, then a misrepresentation may have occurred. In Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563, " This is exactly what Interfin and its Directors have been doing regarding CFX Bank.



"Learned FalsityThe negotiating stage of a contract can be a time consuming process. Because of this, new information may arise and circumstances may change. This can result in two situations which can result in a misrepresentation if silence is kept. The first is if the representor subsequently discovers that the statement was false, the second being if the statement becomes false at a later time. If a statement is made and it is subsequently made known to the representor that it is false, it would obviously be inequitable to allow the representor to remain silent with the new information.



In Lockhart v. Osman [1981] VR 57, an agent had advertised some cattle as being "well suited for breeding purposes". Later on it was discovered that the stock had been exposed to a contagious disease which affected the reproductive system. It was held that the agent had a duty to take remedial action and correct the representation. The failure by the agent to take such measures resulted in the contract being set aside.



Should a statement be made which is true at the time, but subsequently becomes untrue due to a change in circumstances, the representor is obligated to amend the original statement" At the start one could have assumed that Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation were not aware of their illegal actions but now that High Court case HC-6244-04 has been brought to their attention they are now liable for any other statement sthey may make on CFX Bank which seek to justify their illegal and corrupt actions.



This is the relationship that Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation have to the shareholders and general investing public "Fiduciary Relationships - A fiduciary relationship is one of trust and confidence; it involves one party acting for the benefit of another. For this reason, when entering into a contract, it is important for a fiduciary to disclose all facts which could be considered material even if not expressly asked about.[5] In Lowther v Lord Lowther (1806) 13 Ves Jr 95, the plaintiff handed over a picture to an agent for sale. The agent knew of the pictures true worth yet bought it for a considerably lower price.



The plaintiff subsequently discovered the pictures true worth and sued to rescind the contract. It was held that the defendant was in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff and accordingly assumed an obligation to disclose all material facts. Accordingly the contract could be rescinded." Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are expected to act in proffessi9onal manner to safeguard investors and shareholders yet they continue to mislead and misrepresent thereby breaaking their fiduciary dutiesAccording to Wikipedia "Contracts 'Uberrimae Fidei'A contract uberrimae fidei is a contract of 'utmost good faith'.



Similarly to fiduciary relationships, the parties are required to make known all material facts influencing the contract. Contracts uberrimae fidei usually arise when one party has knowledge which the other does not have access to. Contracts which are commonly considered to be of such a nature include contracts of insurance and family agreements. When applying for insurance, the person or entity must disclose all material facts so that the insurer can properly asses the risk involved with the offering of insurance.



Since the insurer cannot have access to all information relating to the insured and their situation which could affect the risk involved, it is necessary for this disclosure so that both parties are entering into the contract on equal grounds. Lord Blackburn addressed the issue in Brownlie v Campbell (1880) 5 App Cas 925 when he noted "...the concealment of a material circumstance known to you...avoids the policy"



This is true in as far as Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are misleading shareholders and potential shareholders to buy Interfin Banking Corporation shares fully aware of the implications of High court case HC-6244-04 which wiill leave Interfin Bank a mere shell.



Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are breaking various laws and regulations in their defiance of common sense.As Directors of a Public Compnay and Financial Institution they have Fiduciary responsibilities under the Companies Act,The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange Act ,The Banking Act and The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.They are breaking all those acts whilst defending a looted asset which was fraudulently seized from ENG Capital.

Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented - 3 of 5

by Gilbert Muponda on Sunday, November 21, 2010 at 10:11am

Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation actions on Century/CFX Bank leaves a lot to be desired especially given how they have tried to conceal Interfin's illegal and corrupt take over of Century/CFX Bank.



In any business it is normal to make a mistake in terms of judgement or at times to act without full information.Inititally Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation could be excused on the assumption that they were not aware of what was happening on the illegal take over of Century/CFX Bank.



However when it becomes clear that the Bank has been invloved in an illegal and irregular transaction there is no excuse for Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation to proceed and manupoulativley convince their lawyers such as Mr Stanford Moyo to issue a legal opinion that would attempt to conceal and hide the initial fraudulent conversion of Century Bank into CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation.



Such actions are illegal and fraudulent.Once Directors become aware of an illegal and irregular transaction they have an obligation to try and resolve the matter as amicable as possible.There is normally no need for bravado as is being displayed by Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation .Such arrogance and bravado only serves to complicate the situation as it becomes necessary to investigate whether the initial transaction was a mistake or Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation in fact connived to defraud ENG Capital of its 309 million shares in Century/CFX Bank valued at US$ 15.4 million



Directors of a Bank are supposed to be people of unquestionable honesty and integrity.They have serious responsibity to the investing public and to regulatory authorities who entrust them to do the right,legal things at all times in addition to being honest about any activities the Bank may undertake.The defiance of logic by Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation in light of overwhelming evidence that Interfin are in possession of a stolen asset only brings into question the intergrity of Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation According to recent press reports Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation had managed to to mislead regulatory Authorities such as the Reserve Bank and Ministry of Finance to approve their fraudulent take over of Century/CFX Bank.



This fraudulent transaction is still being challenged in court under high court case HC 6244-04.Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are breaking various laws and regulations in their defiance of common sense.As Directors of a Public Compnay and Financial Institution they have Fiduciary responsibilities under the Companies Act,The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange Act ,The Banking Act and The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.They are breaking all those acts whilst defending a looted asset which was fraudulently seized from ENG Capital.
Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented - 2 of 5

by Gilbert Muponda on Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 6:57pm

According to recent press reports Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation had managed to to mislead regulatory Authorities such as the Reserve Bank and Ministry of Finance to approve their fraudulent take over of Century/CFX Bank.This fraudulent transaction is still being challenged in court under high court case HC 6244-04.



The current Interfin Banking Coroporation (IBC) is a fraudulent result from the illegal and irreugular conversion of Century Bank into CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation.The fast and swift Bank name changes over a very short period clearly show an attempt to conceal the illegal and fraudulent seizurwe of Century Bank which was rebranded CFX Bank.



CFX bank was further rebranded into Interfin Banking Corporation as a way to hide the illegal conversion of 309 million Century Bank shares belonging to ENG Capital which were illegaly and corruptly converted to CFX Bank.



Since the 309 million belongong to ENG Capital were illegally and corruptly converted into CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation ENG has a legitimate and indisputable claim of $ 15.4 million against Interfin Holdings Zimbabwe being the 309 million shares multiplied by $ 0.05 per share.this claim is premised on the high court case HC-6244-04 which is currently before the High Court of Zimbabwe.



Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation have been busy grand standing and misleading regulatory authorities using various legal and illegal tactics.These include manupulating the press and legal advisors into making suspcious legal opinion which are based on incompletew and at times totally false information.



Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation must be made awre its a crime to mislead investors into buying shares whilst withholding material information.This is a serious offence which undermines investor confidence in Zimnbabwe's financial and banking system.Its totally unheard of for a Managing Director and his Chairman to be stepping over each other to make false and misleading information whilst hiding the truth as Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation have been doing over the last few months.Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are breaking various laws and regulations in their defiance of common sense.



As Directors of a Public Company and Financial Institution they have Fiduciary responsibilities under the Companies Act,The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange Act ,The Banking Act and The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.They are breaking all those acts whilst defending a looted asset which was fraudulently seized from ENG Capital.

Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented - 1 of 5

by Gilbert Muponda on Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 7:55pm

The Herald Newspaper this week reported that Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation had managed to to mislead regulatory Authorities such as the Reserve Bank and Ministry of Finance to approve their fraudulent take over of Century/CFX Bank.This fraudulent transaction is still being challenged in court under high court case HC 6244-04.



Farai Rwodzi,Raymond Njanike and Interfin banking Corporation owe are fully aware that their taske over of Century.CFX Bank was fraudulent therefore its null and void.In addition its a mind boggling puzzle how individuals who claim to be Bankers can go ahead and "take over" a Bank whose ownership is already being challenged in Court under HIGH court case HC-6244-02 .



Such actions are clearly fraudulent as Interfin are now trying to rebrand the Bank and strip assets whilct the case is still pending before the courts.Their aim is to mix up assets until they cant be identified or traced theby allowing them to get away with the fraud and conceal their illegal actions.Farai Rwodzi and Interfin owe $ 15.4 million being the value of the fraudelently acquired 309 million shares at the share value of $ 0.05 per share.



This claim is indisputable since Interfin were fully aware of the legal proceedings regarding these shares before their purported "acquistion" of Century/CFX Bank.Instead of continueing to mislead investing public,depositors and regulatory approvals about their fraudulent activities Interfin should be focused on raisning the $ 15.4 million which they owe me and my Company ENG Capital for the 309 million shares at $ 0.05 per share.



Interfin Bank, Raymond Njanike and Farai Rwodzi have been manupulating their lawyers Mr Stanford Moyo and Mr Addington Chinake by giving them false and incomplete information about their illegal and irregular acquistion of CFX/Century Bank.In turn these reputable lawyers were duped into issuing legal opinion which they wouldnt have issued had they known the full facts such as the High Court case HC-6244-04.



In addition Farai Rwodzi,Raymond Njanike and Interfin Bank have proceeded to mislead regulatory Authorities into approving a fraudulent transaction which is being challenged in court.Such actions of deliberately misleading a regulatory body are illegal and fraudulent.These actions endangers the survival of Interfin and potentially puts investor funds into jeorpady once the regulators discover that their approavals were obtained based on false and incomplete disclosure of information.

Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented – 4 of 5

At law generally Innocent misrepresentation (Derry v. Peek)occurs when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true.Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation have been advised and warned that their take over over Century/cfx Bank was illegal and irregular and is being challenged in high court under high court case HC-6244-04.

The fact that Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation continue to mislead investing public and regulatory authorities about the legality of thier illgal action shows fraudulent intent on the part of Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation.In this article I have borrowed liberally from Wikipedia on seeking to unpack the illegal actions by Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation .

Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation actions on Century/CFX Bank leaves a lot to be desired especially given how they have tried to conceal Interfin's illegal and corrupt take over of Century/CFX Bank.In any business it is normal to make a mistake in terms of judgement or at times to act without full information.Inititally Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation could be excused on the assumption that they were not aware of what was happening on the illegal take over of Century/CFX Bank.

Instance of false statement where (1) the party making the statement is aware that it is false or disregards the possibility of it being false, (2) the party making the statement does so to induce another party to enter into a contract, and (3) the other party enters the contract as a result of the statement and consequently suffers a loss.Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are making false declarations to mislead investing public and regulatory bodies.


Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when one makes representation with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false. An action for fraudulent misrepresentation allows for a remedy of damages and rescission. One can also sue for fraudulent misrepresentation in a tort action. Fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly


According to Wikipedia Negligent misrepresentation at common law occurs when the defendant carelessly makes a representation while having no reasonable basis to believe it to be true. This type of misrepresentation is relatively new and was introduced to allow damages in situations where neither a collateral contract nor fraud is found. It was first seen in the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] A.C. 465 where the court found that a statement made negligently that was relied upon can be actionable in tort.


"Distortion of Fact
A representor may make a statement which prima facie is technically true; however this may tell only half the story. If a statement of fact is made but the representor fails to include information which would significantly alter the interpretation of this fact, then a misrepresentation may have occurred. In Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563, " This is exactly what Interfin and its Directors have been doing regarding CFX Bank.


"Learned Falsity
The negotiating stage of a contract can be a time consuming process. Because of this, new information may arise and circumstances may change. This can result in two situations which can result in a misrepresentation if silence is kept. The first is if the representor subsequently discovers that the statement was false, the second being if the statement becomes false at a later time. If a statement is made and it is subsequently made known to the representor that it is false, it would obviously be inequitable to allow the representor to remain silent with the new information. In Lockhart v. Osman [1981] VR 57, an agent had advertised some cattle as being “well suited for breeding purposes”.

Later on it was discovered that the stock had been exposed to a contagious disease which affected the reproductive system. It was held that the agent had a duty to take remedial action and correct the representation. The failure by the agent to take such measures resulted in the contract being set aside. Should a statement be made which is true at the time, but subsequently becomes untrue due to a change in circumstances, the representor is obligated to amend the original statement" At the start one could have assumed that Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation were not aware of their illegal actions but now that High Court case HC-6244-04 has been brought to their attention they are now liable for any other statement sthey may make on CFX Bank which seek to justify their illegal and corrupt actions.

This is the relationship that Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation have to the shareholders and general investing public "Fiduciary Relationships - A fiduciary relationship is one of trust and confidence; it involves one party acting for the benefit of another. For this reason, when entering into a contract, it is important for a fiduciary to disclose all facts which could be considered material even if not expressly asked about.[5] In Lowther v Lord Lowther (1806) 13 Ves Jr 95, the plaintiff handed over a picture to an agent for sale.

The agent knew of the pictures true worth yet bought it for a considerably lower price. The plaintiff subsequently discovered the pictures true worth and sued to rescind the contract. It was held that the defendant was in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff and accordingly assumed an obligation to disclose all material facts. Accordingly the contract could be rescinded." Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are expected to act in proffessi9onal manner to safeguard investors and shareholders yet they continue to mislead and misrepresent thereby breaaking their fiduciary duties

According to Wikipedia "Contracts ‘Uberrimae Fidei’
A contract uberrimae fidei is a contract of ‘utmost good faith’. Similarly to fiduciary relationships, the parties are required to make known all material facts influencing the contract. Contracts uberrimae fidei usually arise when one party has knowledge which the other does not have access to. Contracts which are commonly considered to be of such a nature include contracts of insurance and family agreements. When applying for insurance, the person or entity must disclose all material facts so that the insurer can properly asses the risk involved with the offering of insurance. Since the insurer cannot have access to all information relating to the insured and their situation which could affect the risk involved, it is necessary for this disclosure so that both parties are entering into the contract on equal grounds.

Lord Blackburn addressed the issue in Brownlie v Campbell (1880) 5 App Cas 925 when he noted "...the concealment of a material circumstance known to you...avoids the policy" This is true in as far as Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are misleading shareholders and potential shareholders to buy Interfin Banking Corporation shares fully aware of the implications of High court case HC-6244-04 which wiill leave Interfin Bank a mere shell.


Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are breaking various laws and regulations in their defiance of common sense.As Directors of a Public Company and Financial Institution they have Fiduciary responsibilities under the Companies Act,The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange Act ,The Banking Act and The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.They are breaking all those acts whilst defending a looted asset which was fraudulently seized from ENG Capital.

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL ( www.gmricapital) .

He can be reached at; www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@engcapital.ca .
Skype ID: eng.capital
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/engcapital

http://www.youtube.com/user/ENGCapital

Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented – 3 of 5

Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented – 3 of 5

Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation actions on Century/CFX Bank leaves a lot to be desired especially given how they have tried to conceal Interfin's illegal and corrupt take over of Century/CFX Bank.In any business it is normal to make a mistake in terms of judgement or at times to act without full information.Inititally Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation could be excused on the assumption that they were not aware of what was happening on the illegal take over of Century/CFX Bank.

However when it becomes clear that the Bank has been invloved in an illegal and irregular transaction there is no excuse for Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation to proceed and manupoulativley convince their lawyers such as Mr Stanford Moyo to issue a legal opinion that would attempt to conceal and hide the initial fraudulent conversion of Century Bank into CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation.Such actions are illegal and fraudulent.

Once Directors become aware of an illegal and irregular transaction they have an obligation to try and resolve the matter as amicable as possible.There is normally no need for bravado as is being displayed by Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation .Such arrogance and bravado only serves to complicate the situation as it becomes necessary to investigate whether the initial transaction was a mistake or Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation in fact connived to defraud ENG Capital of its 309 million shares in Century/CFX Bank valued at US$ 15.4 million


Directors of a Bank are supposed to be people of unquestionable honesty and integrity.They have serious responsibity to the investing public and to regulatory authorities who entrust them to do the right,legal things at all times in addition to being honest about any activities the Bank may undertake.

The defiance of logic by Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation in light of overwhelming evidence that Interfin are in possession of a stolen asset only brings into question the intergrity of Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation

According to recent press reports Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation had managed to to mislead regulatory Authorities such as the Reserve Bank and Ministry of Finance to approve their fraudulent take over of Century/CFX Bank.This fraudulent transaction is still being challenged in court under high court case HC 6244-04.

Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are breaking various laws and regulations in their defiance of common sense.As Directors of a Public Compnay and Financial Institution they have Fiduciary responsibilities under the Companies Act,The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange Act ,The Banking Act and The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.They are breaking all those acts whilst defending a looted asset which was fraudulently seized from ENG Capital.



Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL ( www.gmricapital) .

He can be reached at; www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@engcapital.ca .
Skype ID: eng.capital
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/engcapital

http://www.youtube.com/user/ENGCapital

Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented – 2 of 5

Fraud by Raymond Njanike,Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank against ENG Capital cant go undocumented – 2 of 5

According to recent press reports Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation had managed to to mislead regulatory Authorities such as the Reserve Bank and Ministry of Finance to approve their fraudulent take over of Century/CFX Bank.This fraudulent transaction is still being challenged in court under high court case HC 6244-04.

The current Interfin Banking Coroporation (IBC) is a fraudulent result from the illegal and irreugular conversion of Century Bank into CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation.The fast and swift Bank name changes over a very short period clearly show an attempt to conceal the illegal and fraudulent seizurwe of Century Bank which was rebranded CFX Bank.CFX bank was further rebranded into Interfin Banking Corporation as a way to hide the illegal conversion of 309 million Century Bank shares belonging to ENG Capital which were illegaly and corruptly converted to CFX Bank.

Since the 309 million belongong to ENG Capital were illegally and corruptly converted into CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation ENG has a legitimate and indisputable claim of $ 15.4 million against Interfin Holdings Zimbabwe being the 309 million shares multiplied by $ 0.05 per share.this claim is premised on the high court case HC-6244-04 which is currently before the High Court of Zimbabwe.

Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation have been busy grand standing and misleading regulatory authorities using various legal and illegal tactics.These include manupulating the press and legal advisors into making suspcious legal opinion which are based on incompletew and at times totally false information.


Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation must be made awre its a crime to mislead investors into buying shares whilst withholding material information.This is a serious offence which undermines investor confidence in Zimnbabwe's financial and banking system.Its totally unheard of for a Managing Director and his Chairman to be stepping over each other to make false and misleading information whilst hiding the truth as Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation have been doing over the last few months.

Raymond Njanike ( Interfin Bank MD) ,Farai Rwodzi ( Interfin Chairman) and Interfin Banking Corporation are breaking various laws and regulations in their defiance of common sense.As Directors of a Public Compnay and Financial Institution they have Fiduciary responsibilities under the Companies Act,The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange Act ,The Banking Act and The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.They are breaking all those acts whilst defending a looted asset which was fraudulently seized from ENG Capital.




Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL ( www.gmricapital) .

He can be reached at; www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@engcapital.ca .
Skype ID: eng.capital
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/engcapital

http://www.youtube.com/user/ENGCapital

Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 2 of 5

Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 2 of 5
In Investment Banking and in Finance the rules of financial disclosure are simple — if you choose to speak, speak in full and not in half-truths." Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Bank Zimbabwe have been providing half baked stories on the effect and impact of HC-6244-04 .The full founding affidavit for High Court Case HC-6244-04 is found here
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2059705&id=1393181020

Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe improper disclosures came at a critical time when investors were clamoring for details about Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwes' ability to settle the $ 15.4 million claim by ENG Capital relating to the 309 million Century shares which were illegally and fraudulently converted into Interfin Banking Corporation.

Instead of providing clear and accurate information to the market, Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe dropped the ball and made a bad situation worse by claiming that ENG Capital did not have a legitimate claim based on their legal opinion obtained from Mr Sternford Moyo after misleading him..

Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe is a product of a fraudulent merger between Century Bank and CFX Bank which was subsequently renamed Interfin Banking Corporation after another irregular merger between Century/CFX Bank and Interfin Bank Zimbabwe.

In response to intense investor interest on the topic, Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe repeatedly made misleading statements in earnings forecasts and public filings and regulatory filings to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe and to The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange about the extent of its holdings of assets which are under litigation which would most likely result in Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe failing to meet the going concern rule.

All these “fake mergers” described above were designed with the intention of concealing the initial fraudulent transfer of 309 million Century shares illegally and irregularly transfered into Century/CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation. This illegal transfer is being challenged through High court case HC-6244-04.

ENG Capital and myself are claiming US$ 15.4 million being the 309 million shares multiplied by the share price of $ 0.05 which give the claim total of US $ 15.4 million. Accordingly the share price and market value of Interfin Bank Holdings should be adjusted to take into account of this indisputable claim of $ 15.4 million which Interfin has to settle.

According to Wikipedia below are some of the factors which the share price and value of a company must factor into. One should consider Interfin Bank’s Management poor judgement in “merging” with Century/CFX Bank which has litigation under High Court Case HC-6244-04

In addition to High Court Case HC-6244-04 Interfin Bank investor need to consider the following factors raised by Wikipedia when investing in Interfin Bank Zimbabwe shares
“Stocks have two types of valuations. One is a value created using some type of cash flow, sales or fundamental earnings analysis. The other value is dictated by how much an investor is willing to pay for a particular share of stock and by how much other investors are willing to sell a stock for (in other words, by supply and demand). Both of these values change over time as investors change the way they analyze stocks and as they become more or less confident in the future of stocks.
Earnings per share is generally considered to be the single most important variable in determining a share's price. It is also a major component used to calculate the price-to-earnings valuation ratio.
An important aspect of EPS that's often ignored is the capital that is required to generate the earnings (net income) in the calculation. Two companies could generate the same EPS number, but one could do so with less equity (investment) - that company would be more efficient at using its capital to generate income and, all other things being equal, would be a "better" company.

It is important not to rely on any one financial measure, but to use it in conjunction with statement analysis and other measures
In financial markets, stock valuation is the method of calculating theoretical values of companies and their stocks. The main use of these methods is to predict future market prices, or more generally potential market prices, and thus to profit from price movement – stocks that are judged undervalued (with respect to their theoretical value) are bought, while stocks that are judged overvalued are sold, in the expectation that undervalued stocks will, on the whole, rise in value, while overvalued stocks will, on the whole, fall.
In the view of fundamental analysis, stock valuation based on fundamentals aims to give an estimate of their intrinsic value of the stock, based on predictions of the future cash flows and profitability of the business.”

This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – www.gmricapital.com . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – www.3mgmedia.ca .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; www.ZimFace.com and
www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@gilbertmuponda.com . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/gmricapital
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 3 of 5

Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 3 of 5
Investors and shareholders buying Interfin Bank Holdings shares need to properly access the value of the share before sinking their money into a disputed asset.Such investors are advised to review contents of High court case HC-6244-04 which is seeking the reversal of the illegal seizure of 309 Million Century Bank shares which were converted into Century/CFX Bank then into Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe.
The High court case HC-6244-04 is a must read for any and every investor or stakeholder in Interfin Banking Corporation which is in fact Century/CFX Bank in disguise.
Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe is a product of a fraudulent merger between Century Bank and CFX Bank which was subsequently renamed Interfin Banking Corporation after another irregular merger between Century/CFX Bank and Interfin Bank Zimbabwe.

High Court Case HC-6244-04 has a direct bearing on Interfin Bank’s ability to go on as a going concern. The full finding affidavit for High Court Case HC-6244-04 is found here
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2059705&id=1393181020
All these “fake mergers” were designed with the intention of concealing the initial fraudulent transfer of 309 million Century shares illegally and irregularly transfered into Century/CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation. This illegal transfer is being challenged through High court case HC-6244-04.

ENG Capital and myself are claiming US$ 15.4 million being the 309 million shares multiplied by the share price of $ 0.05 which give the claim total of US $ 15.4 million. Accordingly the share price and market value of Interfin Bank Holdings should be adjusted to take into account of this indisputable claim of $ 15.4 million which Interfin has to settle.

According to Wikipedia below are some of the factors which the share price and value of a company must factor into. One should consider Interfin Bank’s Management poor judgement in “merging” with Century/CFX Bank which has litigation under High Court Case HC-6244-04

According to Wikipedia “Earnings Per Share (EPS). EPS is the total net income of the company divided by the number of shares outstanding. They usually have a GAAP EPS number (which means that it is computed using all of mutually agreed upon accounting rules) and a Pro Forma EPS figure (which means that they have adjusted the income to exclude any one time items as well as some non-cash items like amortization of goodwill or stock option expenses).
The most important thing to look for in the EPS figure is the overall quality of earnings. Make sure the company is not trying to manipulate their EPS numbers to make it look like they are more profitable. Also, look at the growth in EPS over the past several quarters / years to understand how volatile their EPS is, and to see if they are an underachiever or an overachiever. In other words, have they consistently beaten expectations or are they constantly restating and lowering their forecasts?
The EPS number that most analysts use is the pro forma EPS. To compute this number, use the net income that excludes any one-time gains or losses and excludes any non-cash expenses like stock options or amortization of goodwill. Then divide this number by the number of fully diluted shares outstanding. You can easily find historical EPS figures and to see forecasts for the next 1–2 years by visiting free financial sites such as Yahoo Finance (enter the ticker and then click on "estimates").
By doing your fundamental investment research you'll be able to arrive at your own EPS forecasts, which you can then apply to the other valuation techniques below.
Price to Earnings (P/E). Now that you have several EPS figures (historical and forecasts), you'll be able to look at the most common valuation technique used by analysts, the price to earnings ratio, or P/E. To compute this figure, take the stock price and divide it by the annual EPS figure. For example, if the stock is trading at $10 and the EPS is $0.50, the P/E is 20 times. To get a good feeling of what P/E multiple a stock trades at, be sure to look at the historical and forward ratios.
Historical P/Es are computed by taking the current price divided by the sum of the EPS for the last four quarters, or for the previous year. You should also look at the historical trends of the P/E by viewing a chart of its historical P/E over the last several years (you can find on most finance sites like Yahoo Finance). Specifically you want to find out what range the P/E has traded in so that you can determine if the current P/E is high or low versus its historical average.
Forward P/Es are probably the single most important valuation method because they reflect the future growth of the company into the figure. And remember, all stocks are priced based on their future earnings, not on their past earnings. However, past earnings are sometimes a good indicator for future earnings. Forward P/Es are computed by taking the current stock price divided by the sum of the EPS estimates for the next four quarters, or for the EPS estimate for next calendar of fiscal year or two.

I always use the Forward P/E for the next two calendar years to compute my forward P/Es. That way I can easily compare the P/E of one company to that of its competitors and to that of the market. For example, Cisco's fiscal year ends in July, so to compute the P/E for that calendar year, I would add together the quarterly EPS estimates (or actuals in some cases) for its quarters ended April, July, October and the next January. Use the current price divided by this number to arrive at the P/E.
Also, it is important to remember that P/Es change constantly. If there is a large price change in a stock you are watching, or if the earnings (EPS) estimates change, be sure to recompute the ratio.
Growth Rate. Valuations rely very heavily on the expected growth rate of a company. For starters, you can look at the historical growth rate of both sales and income to get a feeling for what type of future growth that you can expect. However, companies are constantly changing, as well as the economy, so don't rely on historical growth rates to predict the future, but instead use them as a guideline for what future growth could look like if similar circumstances are encountered by the company. To calculate your future growth rate, you'll need to do your own investment research.

The easiest way to arrive at this forecast is to listen to the company's quarterly conference call, or if it has already happened, then read a press release or other company article that discusses the company's growth guidance. However, remember that although company's are in the best position to forecast their own growth, they are not very accurate, and things change rapidly in the economy and in their industry. So before you forecast a growth rate, try to take all of these factors into account.”

Adopted from Wikipedia to illustrate other factors which Interfin Bank Investors and shareholders should consider when trading in Interfin Bank Holdings shares.


This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – www.gmricapital.com . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – www.3mgmedia.ca .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; www.ZimFace.com and
www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@gilbertmuponda.com . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/gmricapital
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 4 of 5

Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 4 of 5

ENG Capital and myself are claiming US$ 15.4 million being the 309 million shares multiplied by the share price of $ 0.05 which give the claim total of US $ 15.4 million. Accordingly the share price and market value of Interfin Bank Holdings should be adjusted to take into account of this indisputable claim of $ 15.4 million which Interfin has to settle.

Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe is a product of a fraudulent merger between Century Bank and CFX Bank which was subsequently renamed Interfin Banking Corporation after another irregular merger between Century/CFX Bank and Interfin Bank Zimbabwe.

All these “fake mergers” were designed with the intention of concealing the initial fraudulent transfer of 309 million Century shares illegally and irregularly transfered into Century/CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation. This illegal transfer is being challenged through High court case HC-6244-04.


According to Wikipedia below are some of the factors which the share price and value of a company must factor into. One should consider Interfin Bank’s Management poor judgement in “merging” with Century/CFX Bank which has litigation under High Court Case HC-6244-04

Wikipedia states that “Return on Invested Capital (ROIC). This valuation technique measures how much money the company makes each year per dollar of invested capital. Invested Capital is the amount of money invested in the company by both stockholders and debtors. The ratio is expressed as a percent and you should look for a percent that approximates the level of growth that you expect. In its simplest definition, this ratio measures the investment return that management is able to get for its capital. The higher the number, the better the return.
To compute the ratio, take the pro forma net income (same one used in the EPS figure mentioned above) and divide it by the invested capital. Invested capital can be estimated by adding together the stockholders equity, the total long and short term debt and accounts payable, and then subtracting accounts receivable and cash (all of these numbers can be found on the company's latest quarterly balance sheet). This ratio is much more useful when you compare it to other companies that you are valuing.
Return on Assets (ROA). Similar to ROIC, ROA, expressed as a percent, measures the company's ability to make money from its assets. To measure the ROA, take the pro forma net income divided by the total assets. However, because of very common irregularities in balance sheets (due to things like Goodwill, write-offs, discontinuations, etc.) this ratio is not always a good indicator of the company's potential. If the ratio is higher or lower than you expected, be sure to look closely at the assets to see what could be over or understating the figure.

Price to Sales (P/S). This figure is useful because it compares the current stock price to the annual sales. In other words, it tells you how much the stock costs per dollar of sales earned. To compute it, take the current stock price divided by the annual sales per share.

The annual sales per share should be calculated by taking the net sales for the last four quarters divided by the fully diluted shares outstanding (both of these figures can be found by looking at the press releases or quarterly reports).

The price to sales ratio is useful, but it does not take into account any debt the company has. For example, if a company is heavily financed by debt instead of equity, then the sales per share will seem high (the P/S will be lower). All things equal, a lower P/S ratio is better. However, this ratio is best looked at when comparing more than one company.

Market Cap. Market Cap, which is short for Market Capitalization, is the value of all of the company's stock. To measure it, multiply the current stock price by the fully diluted shares outstanding. Remember, the market cap is only the value of the stock. To get a more complete picture, you'll want to look at the Enterprise Value.
Enterprise Value (EV). Enterprise Value is equal to the total value of the company, as it is trading for on the stock market. To compute it, add the market cap (see above) and the total net debt of the company.

The total net debt is equal to total long and short term debt plus accounts payable, minus accounts receivable, minus cash. The Enterprise Value is the best approximation of what a company is worth at any point in time because it takes into account the actual stock price instead of balance sheet prices” according to Wikepedia

Adopted from Wikipedia to illustrate how and why the Interfin Banking Corporation share price and market value should be adjusted to reflect the ENG Capital indisputable claim of US $ 15.4 million being the stolen 309 million shares multiplied by the share value of $ 0.05 per share givng the total claim total of $ 15.4 million which Interfin Bank owes to me and my Company ENG Capital – Relentless Innovation.
This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – www.gmricapital.com . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – www.3mgmedia.ca .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; www.ZimFace.com and
www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@engcapital.ca . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/gmricapital
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 5 of 5

Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 5 of 5
Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe is a product of a fraudulent merger between Century Bank and CFX Bank which was subsequently renamed Interfin Banking Corporation after another irregular merger between Century/CFX Bank and Interfin Bank Zimbabwe.

All these “fake mergers” were designed with the intention of concealing the initial fraudulent transfer of 309 million Century shares illegally and irregularly transfered into Century/CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation. This illegal transfer is being challenged through High court case HC-6244-04.

ENG Capital and myself are claiming US$ 15.4 million being the 309 million shares multiplied by the share price of $ 0.05 which give the claim total of US $ 15.4 million. Accordingly the share price and market value of Interfin Bank Holdings should be adjusted to take into account of this indisputable claim of $ 15.4 million which Interfin has to settle.

According to Wikipedia below are some of the factors which the share price and value of a company must factor into. One should consider Interfin Bank’s Management poor judgement in “merging” with Century/CFX Bank which has litigation under High Court Case HC-6244-04

“Management issues
Management issues: This involves examining perceptions about management and perceptions by management. It includes various qualitative judgments regarding the competence of current and prospective company management, as well as issues related to insider buying, future strategies to increase operations and market share. Most large companies compensate executives through a combination of cash, restricted stock and options. It is a positive sign when members of management are also shareholders.

When management makes large purchases of their own stock with private funds, it may indicate that management insiders feel the company is undervalued, or that a favorable company event will occur soon.

Another way to get a feel for management capability is to examine how executives performed at other companies in the past. Warren Buffett has several recommendations for investors who want to evaluate a company’s management as a precursor to possible investment in that company’s stock. For example, he advises that one way to determine if management is doing a good job is to evaluate the company's return on equity, instead of their earnings per share (the portion of a company’s profit allocated to each outstanding share of common stock).
"The primary test of managerial economic performance is achievement of a high earnings rate on equity capital employed (without undue leverage, accounting gimmickry, etc.) and not the achievement of consistent gains in earnings per share."

Buffett notes that because companies usually retain a portion of their earnings, the assets a profitable company owns, should increase annually. This additional cash allows the company to report increased earnings per share even if their performance is deteriorating.

He also emphasizes investing in companies with a management team that is committed to controlling costs. Cost-control is reflected by a profit margin exceeding those of competitors. Superior managers "attack costs as vigorously when profits are at record levels as when they are under pressure".

Therefore, be wary of companies that have opulent corporate offices, unusually large corporate staffs and other signs of bloat. Additionally, Buffett suggests investing in companies with honest and candid management, and avoiding companies that have a history of using accounting gimmicks to inflate profits or have mislead investors in the past”
Adopted from Wikipedia
This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – www.gmricapital.com . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – www.3mgmedia.ca .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; www.ZimFace.com and www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@engcapital.ca . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/gmricapital
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Mutumwa Mawere’s return critical for Zimbabwe investor confidence Part 1 of 5

Mutumwa Mawere one of Zimbabwe’s business icon “touched down at Harare International Airport at 1355 hours yesterday aboard a British Airways flight from Johannesburg after spending six years “in the wilderness”. This has to be one of the most visible achievement by the Government of National Unity in terms of being progressive and being “business friendly” Mawere’s safe return sends an encouraging signal to investors that indeed Zimbabwe is now on the progressive path to recovery and tolerance.
I personally met Mawere on different occasions in Harare, London and Toronto under different circumstances. When I met him in London one thing me struck most is how relaxed but focused he was on setting the record straight and also impart his vast business knowledge to others.
Below is how he is his early business life is described
“Mutumwa Dziva Mawere (born January 11, 1960 in Bindura, Zimbabwe), is an African business executive, pioneer, financier, banker and entrepreneur best known as the founder and Chairman of Africa Resources Limited ("ARL"). He is known for having built one of the most powerful and influential corporations in Zimbabwe's history called Africa Resources Limited
He was educated in Zimbabwe, Swaziland, United Kingdom and United States. He holds B.Sc (Economics), M.Sc (Management), MBA (Finance & Investments) degrees as well as other professional qualifications.
He began his professional career as an Acturial Student in 1984. He then joined the Industrial Development Corporation of Zimbabwe in late 1984 as a Research Economist and rose through the ranks to become a Senior Research Economist in 1987 before joining the Merchant Bank of Central Africa in the same year as a Corporate Finance Executive.
In 1988, he joined the World Bank as a Young Professional. After completing the program in 1989, he was appointed as an Investment Officer for the International Finance Corporation, the private sector lending arm of the World Bank. He rose through the ranks to become a Senior Investment Officer in 1994. In 1995, he resigned from the World Bank and immigrated to South Africa where he has been based since.
In 1995, he founded Africa Resources Limited (ARL), an investment holding company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Island, before moving to South Africa. In August 1995, he approached T & N Plc the UK domiciled parent company of Shabanie & Mashaba Mines Private Limited (SMM) with a proposal to acquire the company's Zimbabwean subsidiaries i.e. the asbestos mines, two Zimbabwean industrial companies and a Zambian manufacturing company. Negotiations began in September 1995.
In November 1995, Mawere formed a partnership with Investec Bank Limited, a South African investment bank, to structure and mobilize financing for a mining private equity fund.

While working on the private equity fund, he continued his negotiations with T & N that culminated in an agreement in March 1996 pursuant to which ARL, a company in which he is the sole shareholder, acquired the remaining mining and industrial assets of T & N in Zimbabwe and Zambia.
Since the acquisition of T & N's two UK based companies that were the sole beneficial owners of the Zimbabwean and Zambian companies, the ARL group of companies grew organically and through acquisitions to become one of the largest and diversified black controlled conglomerates with operations in South Africa, UK, Zambia, Namibia, and Malawi employing about 20,000 people and generating a turnover of about US$400 million.
In 1997, the group established a warehousing and forwarding business, Shipping Consolidated Holdings ("SCH") with operations in Zimbabwe (container depot) and Durban, South Africa (warehouse). Acquired a 100% stake in a cellular service provider, CST Cellular Private Limited, later renamed Firstel Cellular Zimbabwe.

Mawere was the promoter, sponsor and investor in a greenfield commercial bank, FBC Bank ("FBC"). FBC was registered as a commercial bank in February 1997 in accordance with the Zimbabwe Banking Act. FBC is one of the first three commercial banks to be provided with an operating license by the Registrar of Banks and Financial Institutions since 1981. Since opening its first branch in August 1997, FBC has established 14 branch locations countrywide.”
Mawere’s return to Zimbabwe opens a new chapter in Zimbabwe’s business environment as the country seeks to cement its image as an attractive emerging market. If individuals such as Sir Richard Branson are keen to invest in Zimbabwe ,it goes without saying that Zimbabwe’s own leading business people like Mawere must be at the forefront exploiting business opportunities that are so abundant in Zimbabwe.

This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – www.gmricapital.com . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – www.3mgmedia.ca .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; www.ZimFace.com and
www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@gilbertmuponda.com . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/gmricapital
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

ENG Capital vs Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank Zimbabwe Dispute unpacked (Part 6 of 10)

ENG Capital vs Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank Zimbabwe Dispute unpacked (Part 6 of 10)
Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Bank clearly have no answer to the fact that they irregularly and illegally grabbed Century /CFX Bank but avoidance, pretentiousness and pretense driven by misleading their lawyers and misinforming the investing public and regulatory Authorities.
.Given that High Court case HC-6244-04 is still before the courts it is a puzzling mystery that Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Bank even had enough guts to go and convince a respectable lawyer such as Mr Sternford Moyo to provide a legal opinion based on incomplete facts. This is shocking for a Banker to go and mislead a respectable senior lawyer of Mr Moyo’s experience and stature.
This clearly shows that Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Bank did not do a proper due diligence exercise.If they had done a complete and proper due diligence they would have discovered that High Court case HC-6244-04 blocking the illegal sale and transfer of Century Bank is still pending before the courts.

In addition Farai Rwodzi and Interfin should have followed the basics of a due diligence listed below ;


INSURANCE
A. List and description of all material property, casualty, liability and other insurance policies
B. Any directors' and officers' liability insurance policies
C. Description of present reserves for, and all potential claims with respect to, any self-insurance
D. History of all insured claims including paid, reserved, and related expense amounts (first dollar loss run)
E. Loss runs for workers' compensation and general liability
F. Loss history for any self-insurance (first dollar loss run)
G. Loss prevention/control recommendations made by insurers, brokers or consultants
SALES/MARKETING

A. Description of the markets in which the Company, its subsidiaries or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries operate, identifying the type of customers and the size of the overall market (by value)
B. Identify any customers which account for more than 1% of annual sales of the Company, its subsidiaries or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries or, if there are more than ten such customers, the ten largest customers
1. The quarterly totals of sales
2. Details of current sales order statistics available to management
3. Sales comparison with the industry
4. Copies of standard sales correspondence, returns and allowance material together with samples of all forms of purchase orders, invoices, warranty agreements, guarantees, etc
5. Details of pricing policies and fluctuations
6. Copies of all printed price lists
7. Identification of principal competitors, a description of the basis of competition and the strength and weaknesses of the principal competitors
8. Indication of the relative size of the Company, its subsidiaries or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries within the industry. Details of trade associations relating to the business and any company memberships
9. Details of current advertising program (including copies of all promotional or other material used or capable of use in connection with the business) and the cost of the same and any other promotion programs
10. Details of sales policies and methods of remuneration of sales personnel

11. The policy on giving express product warranties and rights to customers to refunds, exchanges or credits following a purchase and the value of refunds, exchanges or credits given and warranty claims
12. List the 10 largest suppliers
13. Current research and development plans and budgets
14. Correspondence and other documents relating to negotiations with competitors of the Company
15. Consultants', engineers' or management reports and marketing studies relating to broad aspects of the business, operations or products
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Press releases
B. Listing and description of subsidiaries, joint ventures, partnerships, etc.
C. Description of any future acquisition or disposition plans
D. Description of any future restructuring plans
E. Description of Company's information management system, including any future changes planned.

It is clear that Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Banking Corporation avoided a proper due diligence exercise which would have revealed the existence of High Court Case HC-6244-04 challenging the illegal and irregular transfer of Century Bank into CFX Bank then finally into Interfin Banking Corporation. No amount of rebranding or renaming will conceal this fraudulent transactions all designed to hide the illegal nature of the underlying activities.

This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – www.gmricapital.com . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – www.3mgmedia.ca .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; www.ZimFace.com and
www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@gilbertmuponda.com . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/gmricapital
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

ENG Capital vs Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank Zimbabwe Dispute unpacked (Part 5 of 10)

ENG Capital vs Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank Zimbabwe Dispute unpacked (Part 5 of 10)
Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Bank clearly have no honest answer to the fact that they irregularly and illegally grabbed Century /CFX Bank hide behind conflicting advice which was obtained through manipulation and partial information disclosure.
Given that High Court case HC-6244-04 challenging mthe illegal and irregular transfer of the 309 million Century Shares is still before the courts it is a puzzling mystery that Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Bank even had enough guts to go and convince a respectable lawyer such as Mr Sternford Moyo to provide a legal opinion based on incomplete facts.
Such is the desperation that Rwodzi and Interfin ended up relying on an opinion by Mr Moyo which opinion is in direct contradiction to the one given by Mr Addington Chinake on the same transaction.

Mr Chinake concluded that since Gilbert Muponda is specified he has no rights to challenge the illegal transfer of Century to CFX Bank then into Interfin Banking Corporation.Yet given the same facts Mr Sternford Moyo states that I have legal right to challenge the illegal sale and transfer of the Bank and block the subsequent laundering attempts of renaming the Bank CFX and then Interfin Banking Corporation.

This clearly shows that Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Bank did not do a proper due diligence exercise.If they had done a complete and proper due diligence they would have discovered that High Court case HC-6244-04 blocking the illegal sale and transfer of Century Bank is still pending before the courts.

In addition Farai Rwodzi and Interfin should have followed the basics of a due diligence listed below ;


“ PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
A. General

1. List and details of any material Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) registered or for which applications for registration have been, including, patents, licenses, trademarks, trade names, domain names, copyrights and other intellectual property rights (including technology transfers)
2. Particulars of any license, royalty and other intellectual property agreements (where the Company, any subsidiary or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries is licensor or licensee)
3. List and description of any pending or threatened claims for infringement or other violations of proprietary rights owned or used in the business of the Company, any subsidiary or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries, including any challenges as to the validity, subsistence or ownership of such rights
4. List and description of any suspected or alleged infringement by third parties of intellectual property rights owned by the Company, any subsidiary or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries, or used in their business
5. Arrangements for the disclosure of confidential information (which includes technical and commercial information and know-how which is not in the public domain) either by or to the Company, any subsidiary or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries
6. Details of any agreements with employees and consultants regarding their use of the confidential information of the Company, any subsidiary or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries
7. Agreements, policies or other arrangements relating to proprietary rights of employees in products of the Company, any subsidiary or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries (including royalty or other fee arrangements)


VII. PLANT, PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
A. Real Property
1. Description, location and character of all real property owned
2. Material deeds, surveys and other real property title documents
3. List of any material real property mortgages which are not disclosed in most recent financial statements
4. List of all leased real property, including descriptions, terms of leases, sale and leaseback arrangements, options, annual costs, etc.
5. Reporting letters and opinions regarding the acquisition of any material real property
6. List of title insurance policies
B. Personal Property
1. Description, location and character of all personal property owned
2. List of all material leased personal property, including descriptions, terms of leases, options, annual costs, etc.
C. Miscellaneous
1. Description of facilities and plant, including listing of all material fixed assets and accumulated depreciation
2. Any available appraisals
VIII. INSURANCE
A. List and description of all material property, casualty, liability and other insurance policies
B. Any directors' and officers' liability insurance policies
C. Description of present reserves for, and all potential claims with respect to, any self-insurance
D. History of all insured claims including paid, reserved, and related expense amounts (first dollar loss run)
E. Loss runs for workers' compensation and general liability
F. Loss history for any self-insurance (first dollar loss run)
G. Loss prevention/control recommendations made by insurers, brokers or consultants
IX. SALES/MARKETING

A. Description of the markets in which the Company, its subsidiaries or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries operate, identifying the type of customers and the size of the overall market (by value)
B. Identify any customers which account for more than 1% of annual sales of the Company, its subsidiaries or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries or, if there are more than ten such customers, the ten largest customers
1. The quarterly totals of sales
2. Details of current sales order statistics available to management
3. Sales comparison with the industry
4. Copies of standard sales correspondence, returns and allowance material together with samples of all forms of purchase orders, invoices, warranty agreements, guarantees, etc
5. Details of pricing policies and fluctuations
6. Copies of all printed price lists
7. Identification of principal competitors, a description of the basis of competition and the strength and weaknesses of the principal competitors
8. Indication of the relative size of the Company, its subsidiaries or any joint venture involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries within the industry. Details of trade associations relating to the business and any company memberships
9. Details of current advertising program (including copies of all promotional or other material used or capable of use in connection with the business) and the cost of the same and any other promotion programs
10. Detailsofsalesocies and methods of remuneration of sales personnel

11. The policy on giving express product warranties and rights to customers to refunds, exchanges or credits following a purchase and the value of refunds, exchanges or credits given and warranty claims
12. List the 10 largest suppliers
13. Current research and development plans and budgets
14. Correspondence and other documents relating to negotiations with competitors of the Company
15. Consultants', engineers' or management reports and marketing studies relating to broad aspects of the business, operations or products
X. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Press releases
B. Listing and description of subsidiaries, joint ventures, partnerships, etc.
C. Description of any future acquisition or disposition plans
D. Description of any future restructuring plans
E. Description of Company's information management system, including any future changes planned.”

These are basic steps that would have highlighted the exixstance of High Court Case HC-6244-04 which would have provided Mr Moyo and Mr Farai Rwodzi an accurate picture before misleading the investing public.

This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – www.gmricapital.com . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – www.3mgmedia.ca .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; www.ZimFace.com and
www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@gilbertmuponda.com . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/gmricapital
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Sternford Moyo misled & manipulated by Farai Rwodzi and Interfin on ENG Capital – Part 5 of 5

Sternford Moyo misled & manipulated by Farai Rwodzi and Interfin on ENG Capital – Part 5 of 5

Interfin Bank Directors seem to be ill advised and practizing massive self-deception on a grand scale. It is well documented and in public domain that I challenged the illegal sale and or transfer of Century bank through High Court case HC-6244-04.Yet they go ahead and somehow convince a Lawyer of Mr Sternford Moyo’s standing to issue a legal opinion that has an effect of breaking the ZSE Act and mislead the investing public. This is a serious offence under the ZSE Act, Company Act and other Zimbabwean laws that govern director fiduciary duties.
These Directors need to know that in their personal capacity they could be fired, tried and convicted for lying to minority shareholders and the Investing public...their employer.

Everyone wants the money, but it pretty much amounts to selling your soul when supposedly respected members of the comm7unity such as Bank directors willingly mislead the regulatory bodies such as The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Stock Exchange ,Ministry of Finance, Securities Commission etc.


The ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE ACTActs 27/1973, 24/1975, 15/1981, 20/1984; R.G.Ns 54/1975; 1135/1975, S.Is 468/1979, 236/1980. Is clear on this. Below is an extract from the ZSE act which Interfin Banking Corporation Directors ought to be familiar with since they run a Company governed by this act.


“73 Prohibition of fraudulent acts or of carrying on business of stock exchange
(1) No person shall—
(a) make or cause or permit to be made in any document or return which
is required by or under this Act to be sent to the Secretary, the Minister, the Registrar,
the Committee, the Exchange auditor or an auditor referred to in paragraph (d) of
section forty-six a statement which he knows to be false or does not know or believe
to be true; or
(b) by addition, alteration, erasure or omission falsify any document or
return referred to in paragraph (a); or
(c) by any statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be false or
does not know or believe to be true induce any other person to purchase or sell any
securities; or
(d) directly or indirectly use or take part in any manipulative or deceptive
method of dealing in listed securities likely to stimulate further dealings in listed
securities or any class or classes thereof on the Exchange; or
(e) by means of fictitious transactions or the spreading of false reports
influence the prices of listed securities or any class or classes thereof on the
Exchange.”
Practizing self deception at an alarming scale when they willingly break the relevant Governing Act .This act is freely available on the internet and Interfin Bank Directors need to familiarize themselves .The direct link is here http://www.parlzim.gov.zw/cms/Acts/Title24_COMMERCIAL_AND_FINANCIAL_INSTITUTIONS/ZIMBABWE_STOCK_EXCHANGE_ACT_24_18.pdf
Interfin Banking Corporation Directors seem to be practizing moral flexibility whilst bending rules and regulations to conceal their prior knowledge of a legitimate claim which they with held informing their employers who are the Investing public who are protected by the ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE ACT Acts 27/1973, 24/1975, 15/1981, 20/1984; R.G.Ns 54/1975; 1135/1975, S.Is 468/1979, 236/1980.

High Court Case HC-6244-04 was filed in 2004 and its still pending before the courts. Yet Interfin Banking Corporation Directors pretend there was never any challenge to their illegal and irregular grabbing of Century/CFX Bank.

By will fully and deliberately misleading the Investing Public in violation of the ZSE Act Interfin Banking Corporation is an organization that has re-defined the definition of corruption , deceit and concealment of material information from Investing public and Regulatory Authorities.


This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – www.gmricapital.com . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – www.3mgmedia.ca .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; www.ZimFace.com and
www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@gilbertmuponda.com . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/gmricapital
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Sternford Moyo misled & manipulated by Farai Rwodzi and Interfin on ENG Capital – Part 4 of 5

Mr Sternford Moyo’s claim that there was never an objection to the sale and or transfer of the Century Shares into CFX Bank shares then Interfin Bank shares can not go unchallenged .His opinion must be put under an intregrity test and be compared to publicly available information.

In my original article titled “Gilbert Muponda: Further Revelations on the Century/CFX bank Fraud”
Published more than a year ago on Sep 28th, 2009 and filed under Financial News, which appeared in many newspapers including The Zimbabwe Metro Newspaper I made it clear there was already a High Court case blocking the illegal sale and transfer of the 309 Million Century Shares. The relevant link is here http://www.zimbabwemetro.com/finance/gilbert-muponda-further-revelations-on-the-centurycfx-bank-fraud/

Therefore anyone who did a serious due diligence would have discovered that the dealing in such shares was null and void in addition to being illegal and fraudulent as it was misleading the investing public.

Below is the full article wherein I made it clear High Court Case HC 6244-04 had been set in motion and therefore any dealing in the said 309 million Century shares and any attempt to conceal the original fraudulent transfer will constitute further unacceptable fraudulent behavior and decepit meant to mislead regulatory Authorities and the General Investing public

The original article -
“It appears there is a misunderstanding on why I have been publishing letters relating to claim for ownership of 309 million Century/CFX Bank shares. In addition some have asked why the matter is being raised 5 years after the 309 Million shares were irregularly sold and transferred.

When the sale was done on or around 12 May 2004 I through my lawyers Ziweni and Company filed a high court application to block the sale of the shares. This record should still be there at the HarareHigh Court. As soon as we filed this application I was then specified without a hearing. This limited my ability to follow up the application. My lawyer and his firm was also specified. Leaving me without legal representation on the matter.

This was all done to ensure that the 309 million shares are sold, transferred and Century/CFX Bank is snatched from my Company – ENG Capital.
Several articles have been written highlighting how these 309 million shares and Century/CFX bank was grabbed from ENG Capital. Over the time we had hoped the current and previous Directors and Management of CFX Bank would reach out and try to find out what really transpired and resolve our claim. This is the normal way of doing business.

If you hear someone claiming ownership of your Bank or business you are expected to confront or engage that person to verify the nature of their claim. The CFX Bank Board, Management and shareholders somehow made the arrogant decision to behave as if everything is normal and totally disregard a claim which has been documented even at High court since day one of the fraudulent merger between Century and CFX Bank.

Even the latest press comments by the Bank through an individual identified as its Lawyer it appears they want to keep hiding behind technicalities such as you should have raised the claim earlier or you are specified therefore you cant act on your own behalf. This is inaccurate and misleading.

This level of arrogance and total disregard of material facts and potential impact on investors is an attitude which must be challenged and stopped. As out lined above this matter was filed at the high court in May 2004.And over the years articles detailing the claim have been published. Any serious and responsible Board of Directors would have taken corrective action by at least engaging in negotiations.

Let it be noted that had they done that at early stages this matter would have been closed by simply acknowledging that there was some injustice but however they were not aware that such a thing had happened. This would have been a reasonable and acceptable position.

However it appears the current Board and Management want to keep denying clear facts and act as if nothing was amiss. The continual reference to my specification only highlights that the people who grabbed Century/CFX Bank from me and ENG Capital are the same people who abused the law and manipulated the legal system to specify me without a hearing so that I can follow through action to block the sale and transfer of the shares.
The cases of illegal and unjust business seizures have been occurring at an alarming rate in Zimbabwe. This must be firstly documented. Those doing it must be notified and warned. Those aiding ,abetting and facilitating such business seizures must be documented and be made aware records exist of their illegal action.

Employees in affected businesses such as employees at CFX Bank are encouraged and expected to remain professional and do their best to keep the Company vibrant but must avoid being used as proxies in a shareholder fight. This is not wise.

This part of an effort to fully document and seek redress for the fraudulent transfer of 309 million shares which were used to merge Century Bank and CFX Bank. CFX Bank was created as a result of a merger between CFX Bank and Century Bank.

Century Bank was fraudulently merged with CFX Bank through the illegal and irregular transfer of 309,000,000 Century Holdings shares owned by ENG Capital and Companies owned or controlled by ENG Capital. Since this was a fraudulent and illegal transfer of ENG shares the plotters of the scheme renamed the resultant bank CFX Bank dropping the name “Century” in an effort to hide their tracks and attempt to remove any link with Century.

In April 2003 ENG Capital Investments acquired Century Discount Holdings from Century Financial Holdings ( A ZSE listed Financial Holdings Firm).The purchase price was Z$1.5 billion then equivalent to US$ 3 million. The purchase price was paid in full. ENG then applied to the Registrar of Banks and Financial Institutions for the change of controlling shareholder approval which approvals were denied.

After several attempts to get the underlying reasons for the denial I was informed that ? the Authorities? were not comfortable with ENG political inclination which they said remained ?unclear? in addition issue of the ENG Directors age was raised. We then tried to find out if Century Financial Holdings was in a position to refund ENG for the purchase price and to reverse the Century Discount House purchase. Century Holdings was not in a position to refund ENG.

The only recourse was that ENG had to acquire Century Financial Holdings to mitigate any potential loss of outlay on the Century Discount house acquisition. As such ENG and its associated Companies acquired a total of 52% (including the 309 million) of Century Financial Holdings making Century an ENG subsidiary.

Through our Lawyers Ziweni and Company we sought the identity of the buyer and also to clarify that the share sell was null and void as it had all the hall marks of corruption, insider dealing and was being challenged by the beneficial owners of the shares. In addition the shares had been sold through a special bargain and not an open market transparent transaction. The shares were sold for an unrealistic amount of Z$ 3 billion when ENG Capital had acquired the same shares for at least Z$35 billion. This resulted in the prejudice of Z$ 32 billion to ENG Capital Creditors and Contributories/Shareholders. We also asked the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to investigate and stop the share transfer.

These articles form part of a wider effort to ensure that Zimbabwe?s Corporate sector eventually develops to be one where shareholders are respected and the rule of law is not applied selectively in terms of Investor protection. Whilst the case study may be focused on the 309 million shares and ownership of Century/CFX Bank the facts and scenario can be applied to other businesses that were affected by similar schemes that we devised by corrupt politicians and a corrupt central Bank Governor. It is very important that such cases be clearly and completely be documented.”

End of original article.

When such articles are freely available in the public domain it becomes a puzzling mystery as to why a Senior Lawyer such as Mr Moyo would write an opinion claiming that there was never a challenge to the illegal sale and irregular transfer of the 309 million shares when High Court Case HC-6244-04 is pending before the courts.

This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – www.gmricapital.com . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – www.3mgmedia.ca .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; www.ZimFace.com and
www.facebook.com/muponda
Email: gilbert@gilbertmuponda.com . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; http://twitter.com/gmricapital
Phone: 1-416-841-5542