}

Thursday, March 20, 2014

TICK TOCK: More From The MTI v Krako Official Court Records

Yesterday, in the post "Malibu Media Muzzle", Miss Fortune told the story of Zia Shlaimoun, his business partner Nikolas Korakianitis and the $2,000,000 "bond transaction" that landed them in an Ontario court. In November 2013, the Superior Court of Ontario determined that the Shlaimoun/Korakianitis "bond transaction" was fraudulent and awarded Mining Technologies $2,000,000 (plus costs and interest).

Shlaimoun, via an email from his attorney, threatened Miss Fortune with a "restraining order" and is purportedly seeking thousands of dollars in legal fees and additional costs. 

Shlaimoun claims that Miss Fortune is a "cyber-bully", simply by revealing what is already in publicly-available court documents.

Today, Miss Fortune puts that $2,000,000 bond transaction into its proper $10,000,000 context. 

Presenting the bond transaction's "tick-tock"—the timelinedirectly from Canadian court documents:

THE FACTS:
THE BOND TRANSACTION AND THE ADVANCE OF THE $2,000,000
 

As of September 2009, Infinafund Limited's public filing showed that it only had a net worth of 156,000 Pounds.

On March 12, 2010 Korakianitis and Shlaimoun executed the Joint Venture Agreement (Joint Venture).

The Joint Venture provided that Infinafund was responsible for:
a) operating the bank account;
b) securing the credit line for the exclusive use of the joint venture;
c) negotiating and managing the trading activities of the Joint Venture;
d) returning the collateral contribution; and
e) reporting trading information on a weekly basis.

In early 2010 MTI was introduced to Korakianitis.

Korakianitis represented he could provide financing assistance to MTI for MTI's business. Korakianitis advised MTI that he had access to $300,000,000 of bonds that could be traded. The bonds were allegedly held in a bank account at NatWest Bank.


May 13, 2010: Shlaimoun emailed Korakianitis advising that his ‘banker’ had ‘dictated’ a ‘letter of undertaking’. Shlaimoun advised that it made more sense for an investor to receive a ‘letter of undertaking’ as the investor would then have an undertaking from the bank to return their money in the "unlikely event that we don’t perform". It is clear that Shlaimoun and Korakianitis were both involved in obtaining or creating paper which would help persuade "investors" that the bond transaction was bona fide.

May 18, 2010: NatWest Bank (through insider Stacey Dawes) sent a letter to Shlaimoun of Infinafund Limited regarding a joint venture between Infinafund Limited and Hybrid Finance Ltd. (another "investor" in the bond transaction who had transferred almost $1,000,000 into Infinafund's NatWest bank account).
Roxlark was registered as a company in Belize on May 20, 2010.

May 21, 2010: NatWest Bank sent a letter to Shlaimoun at Infinafund Limited regarding a joint venture between Infinafund Limited and Holtzman & Associates LLC. (another investor in the bond transaction). On that same day, Holtzman wired $1,000,000 to Infinafund’s NatWest bank account. 


A letter from NatWest Bank to Infinafund describing a joint venture between Infinafund and third company was presented to MTI which described that upon payment or deposit of $2,000,000 USD, the "bonds" could be used for investment trading. Quite understandably, this letter lent credence to the bona fides or existence of this "bond transaction".

Based on what MTI could see, the bond transaction was bona fide and had been the subject of investments of significant amounts by other persons or companies. MTI was interested in participating in the bond transaction provided that it had some assurance that its funds could and would be returned fairly quickly.

May 27, 2010: Dawes at NatWest Bank and Korakianitis discussed the bond transaction with MTI several times. It was confirmed to MTI that the $2,000,000 would be deposited into Infinafund’s bank account at NatWest Bank and that Infinafund had $300,000,000 in bonds on deposit with NatWest Bank which bonds were available for trading provided sufficient monies could be raised to "lease" the bonds for trading. MTI was told that its funds would be returned by June 21, 2010 if the balance of the needed funds for leasing the bonds could not be secured. MTI was also told that its funds would be used exclusively for "joint venture purposes".

May 27, 2010: NatWest Bank wrote to Infinafund confirming that Infinafund had "entered into a joint venture agreement with" MTI. This letter went on to confirm that the MTI $2,000,000 monies would be returned to MTI's bank on June 21, 2010 if the additional "financing support" had not been arranged.

This letter was confirmatory of MTI's understanding of the bond transaction and, given that it came from NatWest Bank, confirmatory of the bona fides of the bond transaction. Unbeknownst to MTI, the documentation from NatWest Bank originated from Stacey Dawes, a defendant who has not defended MTI's claim that the bond transaction was a fraud and against whom default judgment has issued.

Shlaimoun acknowledged that, with respect to the NatWest letter of May 27, 2010, the Infinafund bank account at NatWest Bank was for the “exclusive purpose of the joint venture".

May 27, 2010: MTI directed its bank to transfer $2,000,0000 to Shlaimoun's Infinafund NatWest Bank account.

May 28, 2010: Shlaimoun wrote to Dawes at NatWest Bank advising that MTI's $2,000,000 was to be received that day and was to be deposited into Infinafund's USD account. Shlaimoun admitted, during his cross examination, that he told Dawes at NatWest Bank that "we" had an agreement with MTI and that MTI would be transferring the money into the bank account.

In the same letter, Shlaimoun directed Dawes to transfer monies from that same bank account to cover an outstanding cheque and to cover another Infinafund payment. Clearly, Shlaimoun was aware that MTI’s $2,000,000 was transferred into Infinafund's NatWest bank account on or about May 28, 2010.

There is no evidence that these payments directed by Shlaimoun from the Infinafund’s NatWest bank account were used for “joint venture” purposes or in any way relating to the "bond transaction". The monies appear to be used by Shlaimoun for his own purposes.

Shlaimoun denies that he was aware of or privy to the discussions and representations between MTI and Korakianitis.

However, this is not borne out by the documentary evidence. It is clear from letters that Shlaimoun was aware, before receipt of MTI's monies, that:
a) MTI had agreed to invest in the bond transaction;
b) MTI's $2,000,000 was going into Infinafund's NatWest Bank account;
c) MTI's $2,000,000 were to be used exclusively for the bond transaction, or if the bond transaction did not proceed, the monies were to be returned to MTI by June 21, 2010; and
d) Shlaimoun controlled the payments in and out of Infinafund's NatWest Bank account.

Shlaimoun’s factum describes the bond transaction as follows:

The trades used leased instruments as follows: An investor would "lease" financial instruments from the holder and owner of the instruments upon payment of administration and broker fees and instrument "rent" payments. "Rent" for leased financial instruments may be 1% of the principal amount of the financial instrument per month. The lease of financial instruments provides for delivery of the financial instrument by the owner pursuant to terms of account use. The fee for arranging a lease of financial instruments is payable only if instruments are leased. In the event leased instruments are not provided, arrangement fees are not payable and are returned to the client. The leased financial instrument is available to the client for the period of time provided in the instrument lease. The lease period may be extended by mutual agreement and payment of further lease fees.” Then the bonds would be used for “‘arbitrage trading’, which takes advantage of a price difference between two or more markets and strikes a combination of matching deals that capitalizes on the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices. Trades are undertaken on short notice and investments are left in the markets for only short periods of time.”

According to Shlaimoun, Roxlark "was a corporation which offered gold-backed bonds issued by Transatlantic Trading & Consulting Group". Shlaimoun stated he was "introduced to Roxlark by a company called Lantierst".

The first difficulty with Shlaimoun's version of what occurred is that Roxlark and Lantierst are companies he owns or controls, the evidence having clearly shown that Roxlark and Lantierst are Shlaimoun companies. As such it is Shlaimoun, through these companies, offering this "bond transaction" to investors.

Shlaimoun next states that he "leased" three bonds of $300 Million each on behalf of the Krako corporate defendants. There are numerous difficulties with this statement. First, there is the Joint Venture Agreement between Infinafund and Krako which is inconsistent with Shlaimoun's version of what occurred.

It provides that Korakianitis and Shlaimoun were jointly involved in "private financial programs" where they would share the profits. Shlaimoun has taken the position that his signature on the document is a forgery but provides no proof of this bald assertion. In any event, event Shlaimoun states he was to earn 25% from the monies made from this transaction.

Clearly, Shlaimoun and Korakianitis were jointly involved in getting investors for this bond transaction.

Secondly, Shlaimoun has failed to produce any documents, not a single document, showing that he took instructions from Korakianitis.

Thirdly, it makes little sense that Shlaimoun simply took instructions from Korakianitis since, even Shlaimoun admits that the three $300,000,000 bonds, if they ever existed, were with Shlaimoun's bank, NatWest Bank and therefore, under Shlaimoun's control not Korakianitis' control.

Shlaimoun states Infinafund received the three $300,000,000 bonds, held onto them for one month and returned them to Roxlark.

How Roxlark, a newly incorporated company could obtain $900,000,000 in bonds is not explained by Shlaimoun. Shlaimoun testified that Infinafund paid $9,000,000 for the lease of these bonds.

Yet, there is no proof of this payment other than Shlaimoun referring to a number of withdrawals - none of which total to $9,000,000 and the substantial amount of these withdrawals being traced to Shlaimoun’s purchase of his Malibu home.

There is no proof that MTI’s money went to the bond issuer.

There is no proof that the bond issuer transferred the bonds to Infinafund.

There is no proof that Infinafund or its bank, NatWest Bank, received the bonds.

Shlaimoun has not produced any documents to support or verify this alleged complex transaction involving hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds.

Shlaimoun has not produced any documents with respect to the financial or other dealings between Infinafund, Roxlark, Lantierst or the bond owners.

Shlaimoun has not produced any documents from NatWest Bank which shows the existence or receipt of the bonds.

No such documents were produced to MTI pursuant to the Norwich Order.
 

Finally, it makes little sense that a company like Infinafund, with very little assets could provide the necessary security or monies to lease $900,000,000 worth of bonds. Roxlark, having recently been incorporated in Belize, was also not a likely borrower of these amounts of bonds or any other debt instrument.

In his factum, Shlaimoun states the funds Infinafund received from Korakianitis to finance the bond transaction were "always under the control and management of Korakianitis".

Shlaimoun alleges he took instructions from Korakianitis to receive the funds and to disburse funds.

Shlaimoun has not produced any documents which support his alleged dealings with the Krako corporate defendants. There are no documents which support that Korakianitis ever had control of the $900,000,000 bonds or the monies in the NatWest Bank - but Shlaimoun did, by virtue that the monies were in his bank account and the bonds were with Shlaimoun’s banker.

Shlaimoun was the holder of all the money: the investor's money and the bonds. There are no documents which show any directions being given by Korakianitis to Shlaimoun regarding the monies or the bonds.

Mr. Cosandey, a former Examining Magistrate in Switzerland and an expert on fraud investigations describes the “bond transaction” as having numerous aspects consistent with a fraudulent investment scheme. There is no evidence contrary to what Mr. Consandey states. However, the only evidence before this court is that the "bond transaction" is consistent with a fraudulent investment scheme which at a minimum involved Shlaimoun and the Infinafund Defenants.

Shlaimoun states that all the documents needed to prove his allegations are lost or they are on the way here. Even if Shlaimoun’s documents had been lost or destroyed, one would have expected that there would be extensive documentation available from the bond owner, the banks and the various companies regarding the “lease” and rental payments regarding this transaction particularly given its size - $900,000,000. However, there is no evidence at all that the bonds really existed or were transacted as Shlaimoun alleges except Shlaimoun's statement.

The existence of a bona fide bond transaction is dependent on the existence and lease of the $900,000,000 bonds. This becomes critical as Shlaimoun admits that the monies in the Infinafund bank accounts were in his control, were to be used for the "bond transaction" and that the monies were transferred out of the Infinafund NatWest bank account, on his instructions, to Roxlark in furtherance of the bond transaction. Essentially, if the $900,000,000 bonds or bond transaction does not exist, the transaction is a fraud and Shlaimoun and the Infinafund Defendants received MTI's monies and disbursed MTI's monies to Infinafund related companies and Shlaimoun in furtherance of that fraud.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS BY SHLAIMOUN 



The following is an overview of the monies transferred into and out of Infinafund's NatWest Bank account (approximate amounts):


Deposits - May to July 2010:
Unknown Source May 2010 $725K
Holtzman (investor) May 21, 2010 $1M
MTI (investor) May 28, 2010 $2M
Bridgehouse (investor) June 1, 2010 $3.3M
KLR (investor) June 22, 2010 $3.5M
Hybrid (investor) July 14, 2010 $1M
Total Deposits $10.725M

Withdrawals - June 2010 and July 2010:
Infinafund BSI Switzerland July 1, 2010 $5M
Unknown (Infinafund entity) July 14, 2010 $3.1M
Unknown (Infinafund entity) July 21, 2010 $1M
Lantierst June-July 2010 $900K
Infinafund Barclays Bank June-July 2010 $935K
Korakianitis June $300K
Others June $400K
 

Total withdrawals $10.225M

Balance $100K

MTI FUNDS ARE TRANSFERRED TO INFINAFUND 


The MTI funds were deposited into Infinafund's account at NatWest Bank on June 1, 2010 (several days after the deposit was directed by MTI). Shlaimoun instructed NatWest to transfer money from Infinafund’s NatWest bank account (the one with the investor's monies) to cover a cheque written from another Infinafund bank account and transfer $300K to Infinafund’s Barclays bank account to cover another obligation.

June 2, 2010: another investor, Bridgehouse Capital deposited $3.3M into Infinafund’s NatWest bank account.

As can be seen from the above, there were monies from other "investors" in the same Infinafund NatWest Bank account. It is not disputed that the MTI monies were comingled with monies from other "investors".

As of June 2, 2010, Infinafund's NatWest Bank account had a balance of $3,728,825.02.

June 3, 2010: Shlaimoun transferred $320,000 from Infinafund’s NatWest bank account to Infinafund’s account at Barclays Bank.

June 4, 2010: Shlaimoun transferred from the Infinafund NatWest bank account $300K to Athena Korakianitis.

June 9, 2010: Shlaimoun transferred $320,000 from Infinafund’s NatWest bank account to Infinafund’s account at Barclays Bank.

June 15, 2010: Shlaimoun transferred $315,000 from Infinafund’s NatWest bank account to Infinafund’s account at Barclays Bank.

June 16, 2010: NatWest Bank wrote a letter to Infinafund. The re: line is redacted but it shows "XXXXXXXXXXXXX/Krako - Joint Venture". The letter goes on to say that NatWest confirms that "additional financial support has been secured and blocked for the purposes of this joint venture". This letter demonstrates Shlaimoun's significant involvement in the bond transaction and control over the NatWest Bank account. It is not known why or who made the redaction but it is consistent with the Joint Venture Agreement between Shlaimoun and Korakianitis.

June 21, 2010: Shlaimoun transferred $300,000 from Infinafund’s NatWest bank account to Lantierst in Cyprus.

June 21, 2010: MTI demanded the return of its money. These demands continued for a number of days with a variety of reasons being given for the inability to return the funds. Delays continued for months.

June 22, 2010: further monies were received from another "investor" into Infinafund's NatWest bank account in the amounts of $3,299,989.53 from Unicorn Worldwide Holdings, and $3,499,989.46 from KLR 1 LLC.

June 22, 2010: $8,933,025.91 was on Infinafund’s bank account at NatWest.

June 23, 2010: Shlaimoun transferred from Infinafund's NatWest bank account $100,000 to the defendant Williamson's wife.

June 23, 2010: Shlaimoun transferred from Infinafund's NatWest bank account $300,000 to Lantierst.

June 28, 2010: Shlaimoun advised the NatWest Bank that he was transferring the majority of the monies in the Infinafund NatWest Bank account into Infinafund's BSI Bank in Switzerland. A transfer request for $5,000,000 was enclosed.

July 1, 2010: Shlaimoun transferred a further $300,000 from Infinafund's NatWest Bank to Lantierst.

Copies of Infinafund's BSI bank account statements in Switzerland show that Shlaimoun made a transfer of monies from that bank account into a bank account owned by Roxlark. Copies of the bank statements of Roxlark have not been produced.

As can be seen from the above transactions, Shlaimoun controlled the withdrawal of funds from the Infinafund NatWest bank account. In most cases, the monies were transferred to other Shlaimoun's controlled bank accounts except for some money to Williamson's wife and Korakianitis' mother.

As for the unknown Infinafund transfers, what is known it that the money went from Infinafund's NatWest bank account to another Infinafund account, but it is not clear from the documents available to MTI exactly where the money went.

No documents have been produced by Shlaimoun with respect to these other Infinafund accounts. There is nothing in the above transfers consistent with a bona fide bond transaction or payment of any monies to lease $900,000,000 bonds.

SHLAIMOUN BUYS THE MALIBU HOME

On June 30, 2010 Shlaimoun approached a real estate broker with respect to purchasing the Malibu home. It is a 22,000 square foot home on the Pacific ocean.

Shlaimoun included the bank statement from Infinafund's NatWest bank account showing the $8,500,000 as his funds, $830,000 at Barclays Bank as his funds and a further $600,000 "elsewhere".

Shlaimoun advised the broker that "... I am certain that we will reach in excess of $12m within the next 60 days at the current rate of our trading activities." Interestingly, the $8,500,000 was just before Shlaimoun made the large transfer to Infinafund's BSI Bank account.

Shlaimoun also referred to these monies as "his funds" - not investor monies and not monies to be used to "lease" bonds. Lastly, there is no evidence of any trading activities - only investments by parties in the "bond transaction".

In Shlaimoun's bank application for the purchase of the Malibu home, Shlaimoun represented he was the 100% owner of Lantierst, Roxlark and Infinafund. Shlaimoun testified that the money to buy the Malibu home came from Roxlark - the same company which received the monies from the Infinafund NatWest bank account.

This further establishes that Shlaimoun was a principal, if not the only principal, in the bond transaction since elsewhere he stated that Roxlark leased the $900,000,000 bonds. Shlaimoun also received virtually all of the monies which were deposited into Infinafund's NatWest bank account.

The purchase price for the Malibu home was $12,000,000.

MTI RAISES CONCERNS

July 5, 2010: MTI became concerned about its investment in the bond transaction. Shlaimoun sent an email to MTI on July 5, 2010 confirming to MTI he would attempt to stop the transfer of $2,000,0000. This demonstrates Shlaimoun's involvement and control in the MTI's "investment" and bond transaction.

July 6, 2010: Shlaimoun sent another email to MTI attempting to persuade MTI to remain in the investment to "share in any profit generated". Emails were exchanged between MTI and Shlaimoun regarding the "investment". One such email of July 6, 2010 from Shlaimoun to Korakianitis, copied to MTI stated:

As you know we had requested the $2M sent back to MTI last Monday June 28th, but because it was blocked on June 30Th, we could not get the wire released till early this week.

Since then we had a call with Blair and asked him if we could return the funds to our account so that we could finalize our transaction. Because Blair indicated that Bob/MTI would be receptive to this, today we successfully returned these funds to our account so that we can conclude the transaction. In consideration of this, we confirm that it has been agreed that MTI benefit from the transaction.
 

We are making every effort to ensure that the transaction is completed in the next couple of weeks so that we can arrange to return these funds back to MTI.

Once again, thank you for helping work this out.

These words of Shlaimoun are inconsistent with what was actually transpiring in Infinafund’s USD account at NatWest Bank. The monies had or were in the process of being transferred to Infinafund’s BSI Bank account. These words also demonstrate Shlaimoun's primary role in the alleged bond transaction and his direct involvement with and control over the MTI monies.

MTI was persuaded to leave its monies with Shlaimoun. However, MTI now was looking for documentation to verify the trading or investment in the bond transaction. MTI sought a summary of the investments from Shlaimoun. Shlaimoun did not provide the requested summary of the investment.

July 12, 2010: Shlaimoun transferred $3,100,000 from Infinafund’s NatWest bank account to an unknown Infinafund’s account resulting in a balance of approximately $107K in the Infinafund NatWest Bank account.

During cross examination, Shlaimoun later testified that he did not recall to where he transferred this $3,100,000.

July 14, 2010: First American (another investor) transferred $1,000,000 to Infinafund’s NatWest bank account. On July 21, 2010 these monies were transferred by Shlaimoun to another Infinafund bank account - the whereabouts of which is also not disclosed by Shlaimoun.

July 26, 2010: MTI emailed Korakianitis and Shlaimoun, expressing concern over conflicting information as to whether trading of the $900,000,000 bonds had or had not occurred and requesting MTI's $2,000,000 be returned the next day. MTI wanted to speak with Shlaimoun who had been unavailable to discuss the bond transaction.

July 28, 2010: Shlaimoun and Korakianitis confirmed that MTI’s $2,000,000 had been transferred to the ‘lender’. MTI asked Infinafund to provide the name of the ‘trader’, for Infinafund to have their bank confirm their account was blocked pending trade, and for Shlaimoun to arrange a ‘short term bridge’ for the purposes of returning MTI’s $2,000,000.

Shlaimoun did not respond to this email.

July 29, 2010: MTI emailed Shlaimoun and Korakianitis inquiring about the return of MTI’s $2,000,000. Korakianitis emailed MTI and copied Shlaimoun advising that he had spoken with Shlaimoun and that he (Shlaimoun) advised he would provide proof of MTI’s $2,000,000 going to the ‘investor’ and that the “trade is ready and waiting to proceed”.

Shlaimoun did not correct or comment on the statements of Korakianitis to MTI.

There is no evidence that MTI's $2,000,000 was delivered to an "investor" on or about this time or at any other time. There is no evidence that MTI's $2,000,000 was used to "lease" the bonds.

There is no evidence that MTI's $2,000,000 went anywhere than to other Infinafund bank accounts, Shlaimoun companies and eventually, to Shlaimoun.

July 30, 2010: MTI emailed Shlaimoun and Korakianitis inquiring about a conference call to discuss their $2,000,000.

Shlaimoun did not respond to the email.

July 31, 2010: MTI emailed Shlaimoun and Korakianitis stating that Infinafund and MTI were partners and that Infinafund owed a fiduciary duty to keep its partner informed. MTI wanted a response from Infinafund by August 2, 2010.

Shlaimoun did not respond to this email.

August 9, 2010: MTI again emailed Shlaimoun and Korakianitis requesting an update on MTI’s $2,000,000 investment. Numerous emails were exchanged between MTI and Korakianitis/Shlaimoun relating to MTI getting out of the bond transaction and possibly being replaced with another investor.

Shlaimoun became elusive despite being copied on emails.

The return of MTI's monies never materialized.

In order to try to show MTI that the bond transaction had been "financed", on August 15, 2010 Shlaimoun sent MTI a copy of a NatWest Bank statement for June 2010. Shlaimoun pointed to a payment out of the account of $5,000,000 as payment or part payment of the lease of the $900,000,000 bonds.

Shlaimoun did not explain that these monies had already been transferred to another Infinafund bank account with BSI Bank in Switzerland, then to Roxlark and then to purchase his Malibu home.

Despite repeated requests by MTI for information regarding its $2,000,000, very little or nothing was forthcoming from Shlaimoun.

August 18, 2010: a conference call took place with Shlaimoun, Korakianitis, and MTI. Shlaimoun represented to MTI: 


a) from the day of MTI’s deposit, there was $300,000,000 blocked for trading;
b) when MTI asked for its money back, the $300,000,000 was ‘unblocked’, and this caused a problem with the ‘lender’;
c) the money to be blocked for trading was not cash but rather is a bond;
d) the bond was at a number of different banks including Stanley Morgan and LOB bank;
e) some bonds were in Europe, and others in America;
f) he needed to check with the ‘provider’ to determine what information about the bond he was permitted to release;
g) he had direct access to a ‘trader’;
h) he did not know which bank the ‘trader’ would use when he restarted trading;
i) the bonds would be blocked in the jurisdiction they were held in;
j) the identity of the owner of the bonds was confidential;
k) he had an ‘agreement’ with the provider, and would check with the provider to see if he could release a copy of the agreement;
l) he would ask to ‘block’ the bonds again so that they could again be involved in trading;
m) the name of the ‘trader’ was ‘Lionel Preston’ – based out of London;
n) Lionel Preston has his own company and was not with NatWest Bank;
o) Shlaimoun and Korakianitis had the same access to the ‘trader’ Preston.

This conference call was recorded by MTI and was transcribed. It shows Shlaimoun's role as the principal in the bond transaction, including the control of monies in the bond transaction. Virtually every piece of information provided by Shlaimoun is simply not borne out by any documents or any other evidence.

August 23, 2010: Shlaimoun emailed one of the other "investors" and advised “assets are in place, just waiting for the trader to find some paper and get started.”

Again, there is no supporting evidence that this was true.

September 1, 2010: Shlaimoun emailed Korakianitis and advised that “having discussed the matter with my colleagues, I can confirm that our existing agreement remains in full force and that Hybrid and any other clients that you have are covered by our general agreement and no further or supplementary agreement is necessary.”

Shlaimoun was referring to the Joint Venture Agreement between them.

By email dated September 2, 2010 Shlaimoun agreed to produce a "sanitized euroclear bond screen shot" so that he could provide it to Korakianitis to forward to MTI. A copy of the bonds were provided by Shlaimoun on September 15, 2010. Korakianits forwarded the bonds to MTI.

The bonds were for an undisclosed amount from the Banco Central De Venezuela.

There were a number of redactions in the copies of these bonds.

By September 23, 2010, the value of Infinafund's NatWest bank account was reduced to $27,322.86 and is now closed.

Despite this, Shlaimoun kept up the pretense that the bond transaction was still ongoing. For example, on October 4, 2010, Shlaimoun emailed another investor and advised “I signed the blocking agreement on Friday so I am told we should get going this week.”

On October 13, 2010, Shlaimoun emailed Korakianitis advised he was continuing to deal with ‘the provider’. 


On October 14, 2010, Shlaimoun emailed Korakianitis advised that the “’provider’ requires a subsequent installment payment to continue.” These emails are indicative of Shlaimoun's primary role rather than simply taking instructions from Korakianitis.

PURCHASE OF THE MALIBU HOME
 

On July 6, 2010, a Grant Deed was issued granting all interest in the Malibu home to Shlaimoun.

On September 14, 2010 Shlaimoun directed the BSI Bank in Switzerland to transfer $6,200,000 to the United States to complete the purchase of the Malibu home. The monies to purchase the Malibu home came from the same bank account where Shlaimoun had transferred MTI's monies to from Infinafund's NatWest Bank account.

The commingled monies from investors deposited into the Infinafund NatWest bank account were transferred from Infinafund’s NatWest bank account to Infinafund’s BSI Bank in Switzerland, which monies were then transferred into an account in the name of Roxlark at the BSI Bank in Switzerland.

BSI Bank in Switzerland then transferred the money to First California Escrow in California to pay for Shlaimoun's Malibu home.

For some unexplained reason, the deed for the Malibu home was not registered until October 22, 2010, just days after Versailles was incorporated.

1 comment: