The Bank of Namibia successfully overturned a court decision, requiring it to fund Coenraad Botha’s collapsed CBI Global Ponzi scheme.

I know that’s an utterly ridiculous sentence but uh… welcome to Ponzi regulation in Namibia.

Namibian authorities moved against CBI Global by
freezing related bank accounts
in March 2022.

Botha (right) challenged the order by suing BoN in the High Court of Namibia. Botha essentially argued he had a right to scam people through CBI Global.

As part of those proceedings, in July 2022 Botha
secured the right
to claim operational expenses from frozen funds.

The BoN appealed the decision, which played out in the Supreme Court of Namibia in October 2022.

On December 23rd the Supreme Court handed down its findings, ruling in favor of BoN.

In making its decision, the Supreme Court considered the ongoing dispute between Botha and BoN in relation to the funding order.

The court’s order caused a further dispute between the parties on the implementation of the terms of the order. CBI interpreted the order to mean it would decide what the necessary day-to-day expenses are, which expenses were apparent from the historical pattern of the bank account.

Contrarily, BoN and Bank Windhoek understood the order to mean that CBI had to prove, with vouchers, what its necessary day-to-day expenses were and that BoN retains the ultimate discretion to decide whether a head of expenditure is a necessary day-to-day expense.

Basically Botha wanted free-range on funding, which BoN pushed back on demanding evidence.

Looking to resolve the dispute, the Supreme Court found

if a part of a court’s order is unclear but the reasoning in the body of the judgment clarifies it, it can be given effect to. But where the intent expressed in the body of the judgment is not reflected in the actual order it renders execution problematic.

This resulted in a
ruling in favor of BoN
, finding that the High Court

erred by ordering the ‘immediate’ release of funds to CBI without including the safeguards imposed by (the previous freeze order).

The appeal should therefore succeed with costs.

Botha, who runs/ran CBI Global as CBI Exchange in Namibia, sued BoN again in April 2023.

CBI Exchange Namibia, a cryptocurrency trading company, has taken legal action against the Bank of Namibia for freezing its business account, which holds N$10 million, over allegations of conducting unauthorized banking services.

The company claims that the move is unlawful and an abuse of power by Namibia’s central bank.

This time Botha
argues
the BoN couldn’t have properly assessed CBI Global. This is based on CBI Global not being incorporated as CBI Exchange in Namibia until June 2021.

It is (Botha’s) assertion that BoN froze the company’s account based on the assessment it had made on the parent company, CBI Exchange SA (Pty) Ltd which is a South African registered company.

This is of course another baloney legal argument from Botha.

CBI Global began as
Uhuru

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the Bank of Namibia's legal victory regarding CBI Global?
The Bank of Namibia successfully overturned a High Court decision in December 2022 when the Supreme Court ruled against Coenraad Botha's claim to operational expenses from frozen CBI Global accounts. This decision upheld BoN's authority to maintain asset freezes related to the collapsed Ponzi scheme since March 2022.

Why did Coenraad Botha sue the Bank of Namibia?
Botha challenged the BoN's freezing of CBI Global bank accounts by filing a High Court lawsuit. He argued for the right to access frozen funds for operational expenses, claiming these costs were necessary to continue operating the investment scheme despite its fraudulent nature.

What was the outcome of Botha's initial court claim?
In July 2022, Botha secured a High Court ruling

🔗 Related Articles

- BigWhale claims no association with Quizam Media Corp
- Leonardo Cositorto claims “no scam”, more Gen Zoe arrests
- SEC files for default judgment against remaining DFRF defendants
- AladinCoin Review: AIC Ponzi points scheme
- Austrian Regional Court upholds Lyoness criminal decision