Raees Cajee’s evidence contradicted in Africrypt liquidation case

Raees Cajee’s attempts to avoid the final liquidation of Africrypt, the crypto investment program that appears to have grossed R200 million before it was allegedly hacked in April, met serious headwinds.

Raees is accused of trying to hide behind a Hong Kong-based company called RaeCreateWealth (RCW) and another entity called RCWSA to escape creditors’ liability.


Subscribe for full access to all of our data sharing and unit trust tools, award-winning articles, and support quality journalism in the process.

The Cajees fled South Africa apparently out of fear for their lives after claiming their crypto accounts were hacked in April. What amazed investigators was that well over R200 million in bitcoin was stolen from digital wallets linked to Africrypt.

As Moneyweb previously reported, a single wallet contained over 71,000 bitcoins, worth around $ 2.4 billion (Rand 34.5 billion at current exchange rates).

Forensic investigator Hamilton Cheong and several claimants disputed the existence of a hack, saying the evidence did not support this story.

It is also not the first time that Cajees’ crypto investment programs have been hacked, which casts further doubt on their version of events.


Meet the 29-year-old South African who untangles the multibillion rand Africrypt theft

Lightning strikes twice for Africrypt’s Cajee brothers

One theory proposed is that the R200 million claimed in South Africa by Africrypt investors have mixed with funds from various other sources.

Spending brothers

Juan Meyer, as director of Badaspex, and in response to Raees Cajee, shines the spotlight on the seemingly spendthrift brothers, with bank statements showing spending on luxury cars such as a Lamborghini, Audi R8, and various BMWs. .

In addition, damages are paid for an AirBnB, totaling R 7.8 million.

Bank statements attached to Meyer’s affidavit show vehicle expenses of R892,406, clothing (including watches) of R685,997, residential rentals of R250,000, family travel expenses of R504,935 and sponsorships to the Africrypt name of R115,000.

Meyer maintains that the Cajees realized that “their plan was no longer viable and that they had to start to” create “reasons for its future non-execution.”

“It is suggested that the real fear of Raees and Ameer [Cajee] is criminal prosecution for return to South Africa, ”says Meyer.

He says Raees Cajee’s assertion in his opposing affidavit that hackers are using a Ukrainian IP address [internet protocol] The address managed to penetrate multiple layers of security to escape with bitcoins belonging to Africrypt’s clients cannot be accepted by the court as he is not an expert.

” The fact is that [Africrypt] has to date done nothing to recover the losses suffered, notwithstanding its commitments in its letter of April 13, 2021 to its investors.

Badaspex had requested a refund of Rand 3.175 million, but an inspection of FNB’s bank statements for RCWSA showed that no funds were available to settle that amount.

It was this demand for reimbursement (by Badaspex) that in all likelihood triggered the collapse of the system operated by the Cajees.

Houghton Hotel incident

When Africrypt did not honor the refund request, Raees claims that Meyer – who had previously been an associate of jailed crime boss Radovan Krejcir – visited the Houghton Hotel where Ameer was renting an apartment and managed to get in. clear your way into the apartment.

Ameer managed to shut the door on Meyer, who remained standing in the passage, “knocking on the door and trying to force his way back”.

Ameer escaped the apartment via an internal elevator, and hotel security apparently kidnapped Meyer.

Raees also claims her father was kidnapped and threatened by angry investors in Dubai, and a criminal case has been opened by Dubai Police.

Meyer in response asks why no charges were brought against him by Ameer, or why the events at the Houghton Hotel were not recorded or reported to the proper authorities at the time.

“The only reason Ameer was trying to escape my attention was due to [Africrypt] simply not having sufficient resources to pay the withdrawal amount as required by [Badaspex]. I represent an investor who has a claim of over R35 million against the entity represented by the two Cajee brothers, Raees and Ameer, ”says Meyer’s affidavit.

“Raees and Ameer’s personal opinions about me are irrelevant to this claim and have clearly been added to create an atmosphere in the absence of defense.”

Meyer says the facts do not support Raees Cajee’s claim that investors did not contract with Africrypt, but with the entity called RCWSA, a subsidiary of the Hong Kong entity RCW.

“No legal status”

On this basis, Badaspex does not have the legal capacity to submit a request for the final liquidation of Africrypt. Badaspex obtained an interim liquidation order against Africrypt in April this year, although Raees Cajee filed an affidavit with the court last month opposing the final liquidation.

Cajee claims that Africrypt itself has never received any investments from Badaspex or any other investor.

In response, Meyer provides bank statements and other evidence to show that he and other investors have always believed they were dealing with Africrypt, and Cajee’s claims to the contrary are only attempts to avoid liability.

Although customers were required to sign agreements with RCW of Hong Kong, these agreements were never implemented and no funds were ever returned to RCW.

Africrypt never asked SA Reserve Bank for permission to withdraw funds from the country, and investors were expressly instructed to make payment to the Africrypt FNB account.

Raees confirmed in an email dated August 17, 2020, that customers are dealing with Africrypt and that Africrypt will abide by the previously signed agreement with the Hong Kong entity.

“The defense advanced by [Africrypt] to the effect that [Badaspex] did not contract with [Africrypt], is either [a] dishonest ulterior motive, or, even worse, a premeditated strategy ”, dismisses Meyer.

“In any event, this defense is not supported by any evidence, it is presented by objective facts and [Africrypt’s] own conduct, and it must be rejected without further delay.

Source link

Comments are closed.