Mutumwa Mawere and SMM Case a perfect opportunity to encourage Zimbabwe Investment
Whilst the media continues to feast on the SMM and Mr Mutumwa Mawere saga it appears the whole nation is now too heavily invested in blame apportioning whilst missing a clear and perfect opportunity to show the whole world that Zimbabwe welcomes investors and the environment is changing for the better. The way forward really is for Mr Mutumwa Mawere to be given back his business empire or whatever remains of it since its widely reported that the empire is now in ruins. This case presents an opportunity to send a clear message to investors and the international community that Zimbabwe has rule of law and investors are secure.
The economic empowerment and indigenization message will seem like a mere political slogan and empty ploy if the Mutumwa Mawere and SMM case is left to keep dragging on and on without any end in sight .Mr Mawere is an experienced business person whose skills ,contacts ,network and experience are desperately needed as Zimbabwe embarks on the economic empowerment and indigenization revolution.
When such sagas unfold normally the key participants feel the need to accuse and counter accuse but no-one really benefits from counter accusations flying all over the Media. This matter has been well documented and its never short of new twists and new revelations.
However there has been a dramatic loss of jobs reportedly around 19,000 jobs were lost in the whole Mawere specification, SMM reconstruction and Mutumwa Mawere de-specification drama. Is it not time that a new leaf be turned in the Saga and let Mr Mawere focus on rebuilding his business and create jobs?
It is imperative to note that job creation must be central to poverty alleviation in Zimbabwe. Jobs are created under a certain secure investment environment. Zimbabwe’s decline over the last decade has been blamed on politicians and politics. There hasn’t been a clear effort to seek to properly avoid the blame game which is counter production and only serves to increase tension whilst leading to a deteriorating investment climate.
As Zimbabwean we have to commit ourselves to economic freedom in our lifetime. This economic freedom can only be brought by a broad based economic empowerment revolution led by such experienced individuals like Mr Mutumwa Mawere.
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, he 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.
The current calls by the Government of Zimbabwe to encourage investment ,broad based economic empowerment and indigenization must be complimented by visible positive steps such as resolving the Mawere and SMM for the benefit of the country and hopefully the 19,000 jobs can be re-created in the medium to long term.
Disclaimer
All information on this site is provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Prior to execution of any security trade, you are advised to consult your authorized financial advisor to verify the accuracy of all information. Neither GMRI Capital nor any independent provider is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein.
This article was prepared exclusively for 3MG MEDIA by GMRI Capital a Division of the ENG Capital Group.
Contact
http://www.facebook.com/engcapital
http://twitter.com/engcapital
www.engcapital.ca
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Professionals acting unprofessionally when Professionals mislead Politicians
Professionals acting unprofessionally when Professionals mislead Politicians
After reading the latest instalment by Mr Mutumwa Mawere, where he argued convincingly that the tolerance limit in the developing world is so low to make it easy ,comfortable and rewarding for bad and unethical accountants to prosper. I began to reflect on my own circumstances and experiences and could find no better explanation to the reprehensible conduct of a chartered Accountant Reggie Saruchera of Camelsa (ENG Liquidator) who is a registered member of ICAZ and in good standing than the fact that there is no effective self regulation in professional bodies whose members would rather point fingers at politicians and political parties rather than their own role in under mining black capital formation ,the rule of law and democracy.
Although I have abundant evidence confirming the misconduct and unethical behaviour by Saruchera ,I took the decision not to lodge complaint against Saruchera as required by law because I could find no evidence since Independence where ICAZ has acted against one of their own in the public interest. It became clear to me of the hidden hand of certain professionals in aiding and abetting destruction of black entrepreneurs and reverse black capital formation but rush to blame politicians or political parties without people like Saruchera taking responsibility of their negligence and unethical behaviour.
Such low confidence in professional bodies has a lot to explain about why Zimbabwe is where it is. In addition to blame statecrafters as suggested and proposed by Hon Minister Biti in his debate with Nathaniel Manheru with Mutumwa Mawere reviewing respective points I also suggest we critically examine the role of professionals in the decay that has visited Zimbabwe. The problem is beyond politicians or a political party.
I came to this conclusion because of my own real life experience at the hands of Reggie Saruchera whom I had mistakenly believed to be a professional guided by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe (ICAZ).So just because someone is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe (ICAZ) we can not simply assume they will act professional.
I think we are closer to being victims of witch craft than statecraft because the state has been hijacked by opportunistic ,ambitious ,dangerous and greedy individuals who remotely feed politicians with poisonous advice and ideas .Some of them are Ministers who remain silent choosing to blame Mugabe or the misdeeds of their own kind. We must take a close look at professionals and their bodies if they can support the Indigenization and the broad based empowerment revolution which Zimbabwe has embarked on.
In the ENG saga Saruchera’s conduct is so reprehensible to demand an outrage. And the relevant body such the ICAZ must take corrective action .The tolerance of limits of some our professional bodies leaves a lot to be desired ,its so easy, comfortable and rewarding to be a bad accountant and get away with it as demonstrated by Saruchera and Camelsa whilst seeking to blame political actors .
After bail was denied was forced to volunteer liquidation. I knew I was in serious trouble but wasn’t actually sure the nature of the crime. The liquidation was involuntary as it was induced because of my imprisonment. The Courts demanded a payment plan which we only produced by securing creditors by applying for liquidation.
I have been in state of disbelief of the conduct of a chartered of a chartered accountant registered with ICAZ. It still bleeds my heart. Whenever my daughter asks me about possibility of being a chartered Accountant I quickly discourage her.
We need accountants who believe in proper broad based economic empowerment. If Saruchera acted in accordance with the law and within his professional guidelines and ethically then ENG case would have been properly concluded without any future ownership disputes such as the one involving me and Interfin Bank Holdings over Century/CFX Bank.
In terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the assets of specified persons must be protected and preserved and yet in terms of the Companies Act, the liquidator is empowered to dispose of the same assets.
On the one hand, I could not challenge the actions of Saruchera without seeking Saruchera’s permission. And Saruchera as a chartered Accountant and member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe ought to have known that you cant be both Liquidator and Investigator. This is clearly unethical,unacceptable and outrageous. Its even worse that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe continue to have Saruchera and Camelsa as members in good standing.
After Saruchera started showing unacceptable conduct and after several letters seeking redress I and my co-contributory Nyasha Watyoka resolved to seek Saruchera’s removal from office as liquidator.I filed high court case HC- 6244-04.This case is still pending before the high court in Harare. Instead of responding to the my high court HC 6244-04 application seeking his removal Saruchera sought political intervention by applying for my specification just because I had challenged his illegal attempt to dispose shares which he didn’t have express authority to dispose.
As a professional Saruchera should have known that when facing a court action you respond legally not politically. His application to the Minister was solely for the aim to tie my hands so he could sell ENG Assets without any input from me or my co-director even though it was our company he was dealing in.
The fact must be made that once Saruchera applied for himself to be appointed as Investigator it is a puzzling mystery why he then continued to also act as liquidator. Can we blame a Minister ,a politician or a Political party for actions like these which were done by a professional? Can someone become both judge and prosecutor?
In the application to remove Saruchera, it is obvious that as liquidator he should have had no interest in remaining as liquidator especially if persons with interests in the estate feel injured.
However, fully cognisant that his services were not welcome in the administration of ENG, Saruchera accepted the mandate to be investigator pursuant to the operation of the Prevention of Corruption Act and more importantly, he continued to act as liquidator.
Saruchera is a qualified accountant and a member in good standing of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe (ICAZ). The Institute is a creature of statute and is the sole organisation to award the Chartered Accountant designation in Zimbabwe. It is regulated in terms of the Chartered Accountants Act Chapter 27:02 as a professional body. Should we blame politicians for the failure of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe (ICAZ) to rein in one of their own when they go on a rampage disregarding ethical standards?
The conduct of Saruchera and Camelsa in the ENG matter must, therefore, be a matter of public interest and is it not strange that we have not seen any outrage being expressed by the ICAZ about the manner in which the ENG matter has been handled by one of their own?
The reasons for lack of an uproar maybe because most people did not know that Saruchera was both Liquidator and Investigator.
What should Saruchera have done in this matter? Should he have applied for and accepted the dual mandate of Investigator and Liquidator as he did?
As a liquidator, he had a fiduciary responsibility to the creditors , contributories and shareholders, including my co-director and share holder Nyasha Watyoka and myself, and yet in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he did not owe any responsibility to us rather he reported directly to the Minister of Justice to whom I suppose he did not explain that he could not be investigator and liquidator at the same time. After such clear facts it becomes clear that sometimes we blame politicians and political parties when the blame should squarely be on professionals like Saruchera and Camelsa who mislead these political leaders.
Gilbert Muponda is an Investment banker he can be reached at gilbert@engcapital.ca
www.engcapital.ca
http://www.facebook.com/muponda
After reading the latest instalment by Mr Mutumwa Mawere, where he argued convincingly that the tolerance limit in the developing world is so low to make it easy ,comfortable and rewarding for bad and unethical accountants to prosper. I began to reflect on my own circumstances and experiences and could find no better explanation to the reprehensible conduct of a chartered Accountant Reggie Saruchera of Camelsa (ENG Liquidator) who is a registered member of ICAZ and in good standing than the fact that there is no effective self regulation in professional bodies whose members would rather point fingers at politicians and political parties rather than their own role in under mining black capital formation ,the rule of law and democracy.
Although I have abundant evidence confirming the misconduct and unethical behaviour by Saruchera ,I took the decision not to lodge complaint against Saruchera as required by law because I could find no evidence since Independence where ICAZ has acted against one of their own in the public interest. It became clear to me of the hidden hand of certain professionals in aiding and abetting destruction of black entrepreneurs and reverse black capital formation but rush to blame politicians or political parties without people like Saruchera taking responsibility of their negligence and unethical behaviour.
Such low confidence in professional bodies has a lot to explain about why Zimbabwe is where it is. In addition to blame statecrafters as suggested and proposed by Hon Minister Biti in his debate with Nathaniel Manheru with Mutumwa Mawere reviewing respective points I also suggest we critically examine the role of professionals in the decay that has visited Zimbabwe. The problem is beyond politicians or a political party.
I came to this conclusion because of my own real life experience at the hands of Reggie Saruchera whom I had mistakenly believed to be a professional guided by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe (ICAZ).So just because someone is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe (ICAZ) we can not simply assume they will act professional.
I think we are closer to being victims of witch craft than statecraft because the state has been hijacked by opportunistic ,ambitious ,dangerous and greedy individuals who remotely feed politicians with poisonous advice and ideas .Some of them are Ministers who remain silent choosing to blame Mugabe or the misdeeds of their own kind. We must take a close look at professionals and their bodies if they can support the Indigenization and the broad based empowerment revolution which Zimbabwe has embarked on.
In the ENG saga Saruchera’s conduct is so reprehensible to demand an outrage. And the relevant body such the ICAZ must take corrective action .The tolerance of limits of some our professional bodies leaves a lot to be desired ,its so easy, comfortable and rewarding to be a bad accountant and get away with it as demonstrated by Saruchera and Camelsa whilst seeking to blame political actors .
After bail was denied was forced to volunteer liquidation. I knew I was in serious trouble but wasn’t actually sure the nature of the crime. The liquidation was involuntary as it was induced because of my imprisonment. The Courts demanded a payment plan which we only produced by securing creditors by applying for liquidation.
I have been in state of disbelief of the conduct of a chartered of a chartered accountant registered with ICAZ. It still bleeds my heart. Whenever my daughter asks me about possibility of being a chartered Accountant I quickly discourage her.
We need accountants who believe in proper broad based economic empowerment. If Saruchera acted in accordance with the law and within his professional guidelines and ethically then ENG case would have been properly concluded without any future ownership disputes such as the one involving me and Interfin Bank Holdings over Century/CFX Bank.
In terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the assets of specified persons must be protected and preserved and yet in terms of the Companies Act, the liquidator is empowered to dispose of the same assets.
On the one hand, I could not challenge the actions of Saruchera without seeking Saruchera’s permission. And Saruchera as a chartered Accountant and member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe ought to have known that you cant be both Liquidator and Investigator. This is clearly unethical,unacceptable and outrageous. Its even worse that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe continue to have Saruchera and Camelsa as members in good standing.
After Saruchera started showing unacceptable conduct and after several letters seeking redress I and my co-contributory Nyasha Watyoka resolved to seek Saruchera’s removal from office as liquidator.I filed high court case HC- 6244-04.This case is still pending before the high court in Harare. Instead of responding to the my high court HC 6244-04 application seeking his removal Saruchera sought political intervention by applying for my specification just because I had challenged his illegal attempt to dispose shares which he didn’t have express authority to dispose.
As a professional Saruchera should have known that when facing a court action you respond legally not politically. His application to the Minister was solely for the aim to tie my hands so he could sell ENG Assets without any input from me or my co-director even though it was our company he was dealing in.
The fact must be made that once Saruchera applied for himself to be appointed as Investigator it is a puzzling mystery why he then continued to also act as liquidator. Can we blame a Minister ,a politician or a Political party for actions like these which were done by a professional? Can someone become both judge and prosecutor?
In the application to remove Saruchera, it is obvious that as liquidator he should have had no interest in remaining as liquidator especially if persons with interests in the estate feel injured.
However, fully cognisant that his services were not welcome in the administration of ENG, Saruchera accepted the mandate to be investigator pursuant to the operation of the Prevention of Corruption Act and more importantly, he continued to act as liquidator.
Saruchera is a qualified accountant and a member in good standing of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe (ICAZ). The Institute is a creature of statute and is the sole organisation to award the Chartered Accountant designation in Zimbabwe. It is regulated in terms of the Chartered Accountants Act Chapter 27:02 as a professional body. Should we blame politicians for the failure of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe (ICAZ) to rein in one of their own when they go on a rampage disregarding ethical standards?
The conduct of Saruchera and Camelsa in the ENG matter must, therefore, be a matter of public interest and is it not strange that we have not seen any outrage being expressed by the ICAZ about the manner in which the ENG matter has been handled by one of their own?
The reasons for lack of an uproar maybe because most people did not know that Saruchera was both Liquidator and Investigator.
What should Saruchera have done in this matter? Should he have applied for and accepted the dual mandate of Investigator and Liquidator as he did?
As a liquidator, he had a fiduciary responsibility to the creditors , contributories and shareholders, including my co-director and share holder Nyasha Watyoka and myself, and yet in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he did not owe any responsibility to us rather he reported directly to the Minister of Justice to whom I suppose he did not explain that he could not be investigator and liquidator at the same time. After such clear facts it becomes clear that sometimes we blame politicians and political parties when the blame should squarely be on professionals like Saruchera and Camelsa who mislead these political leaders.
Gilbert Muponda is an Investment banker he can be reached at gilbert@engcapital.ca
www.engcapital.ca
http://www.facebook.com/muponda
Saturday, January 1, 2011
The importance of the Rule of Law - the ENG case
Today, 1 January 2011, being the first day of the second decade of this African century provides another opportunity for us as Africans to reflect on what kind of Africa we want to see.
To the extent that the future is a product of human actions and choices, we can shape the future by the decisions we make today and more significantly by the actions that flow from the decisions made.
To me, the just ended year brought with it my de-specification. I was specified on 9 July 2004 together with Messrs. James Mushore and Francis Zimuto.
As I looked back at the 6 years, I am comforted that I have not been alone in the bus. The bus that I took a ride in 2004 already had passengers including Mr. Gilbert Muponda, a Zimbabwe-born entrepreneur who was forced to leave a country of his birth because of a real threat to his life; Mr. James Makamba who became the first high profile person to spend about 7 months in remand prison for a crime he did not commit.
As I sit today trying to understand the Africa that can be possible if the state is controlled by a few wise but evil persons, I just discovered that no attempt has been made to make a head count of all the people who were forced to ride on this bus.
I discovered that the majority of persons specified on allegations of externalisation were black. Some were professionals while others were business owners.
What is remarkable is that after 6 years of madness, no attempt has been made for the passengers to come together to exchange experiences and really to compare notes.
The experiences that we have been subjected to are now part of the heritage of Zimbabwe and yet very little has been recorded of this ugly period. Who was behind this onslaught on personal and property rights?
The first victim was Mr. Muponda and his colleagues at ENG. While it is easy to reduce Muponda's ordeal to a personal matter, it is important that the nation be told why if ENG was insolvent, Muponda and fellow directors were arrested and subsequently specified.
In a constitutional democratic order, it is not unusual that companies fail and the law has adequate protection for genuine creditors yet in the ENG matter we saw for the first time the emergence of a new order. Under this order, law enforcement authorities were called to action and new laws were introduced to allow for the persecution of targeted persons.
As we begin this year, we cannot escape from the sanctions debate as it relates to the GPA arrangement and yet the sanctions imposed on people like Muponda continue to exist well over 24 months of the existence of the GPA government.
When I read yesterday that Muponda had appealed to Hon. Chinamasa for his specification order to be revoked, I knew that Muponda was on his own.
It is often difficult for anyone to imagine what must be going on in Muponda's mind on this day. I am reminded that in the class of the specified persons, there remains a number of persons whose specification order are still in force. Such individuals include: Messrs. Jabulani Manyanga, Francis Zimuto among others.
Although Mr. Makamba was de-specified in May 2010, a warrant for his arrest is believed to be still in force notwithstanding the fact that he was acquitted by a court of law.
Mr. Muponda was specified in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act). This piece of legislation was intended to allow the state to investigate a specified person while preserving his assets. The legislation was not meant to legally disable a specified person from defending himself while his property was under attack.
Precisely who has an interest in preventing Muponda from returning to Zimbabwe? Surely it is not the creditors of ENG. Who was behind the arrest of Muponda? It could not be creditors of ENG whose protection could only lie in the laws existing at the time.
In the ENG matter, we saw for the first time the use of criminal law to regulate the relationship between a creditor and a debtor. This raises a question regarding the legal and constitutional order that would allow for the RBZ to interpose itself as a complainant in a dispute involving competent creditors and a vulnerable debtor.
As we stand today, there is creditor who has reported any financial loss from ENG. More significantly, Muponda finds himself with no access to the very assets that were meant to be protected under the Act.
During 2010, Interfin took control of CFX Bank, one of the assets formerly under the control of ENG before this bizarre saga. Muponda has sought to argue that the transaction was illegal and this found him at loggerheads with the shareholders of Interfin.
If the rule of law existed, should Muponda be at loggerheads with Interfin shareholders? When one looks at the timeline, it will be obvious that Muponda lost control of his empire at the hands of state actors and not creditors of ENG.
The law states that any transaction involving the disposal of the assets of a specified person during the period of specification is null and void and yet Interfin has sought to argue that notwithstanding Muponda's continued specification, the deal involving CFX is above board.
It is incumbent upon all of us to be the custodians of a just and equitable society. Should Muponda as a victim be left to his own devices to restore his rights or should it be our collective responsibility?
When Hitler targeted gypsies, many chose to ignore and as he gained confidence in undermining the rights of citizens no one was safe. If Muponda is not safe and the tolerance for abusive behavior exists, then we are all at risk and poorer for allowing absurd situations to define our generation.
As we look forward, we need to critically reflect on the journey traveled and draw lessons hopefully on how not to behave lest the strong of today will be the Mupondas of tomorrow.
The importance of the respect of the rule of law cannot be overstated. What happened to ENG can happen to any corporate citizen of Zimbabwe.
History will no doubt be the judge but it is important for our generation who are privileged to know what Zimbabwe lost by the collapse of ENG to register our distaste about the manner in which laws were used for improper purpose while the authors of this kind of behavior remain unaccountable even with the emergence of the inclusive government.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
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.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
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
Sunday, November 21, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)