After accusing them of “serious misconduct”, MTI kingpin Clynton Marks applied to have court-appointed liquidators removed.

As
reported by MoneyWeb
on March 18th, Western Cape High Court rejected Marks claims

on the grounds that the application was motivated by a desire to avoid interrogation and that allegations of serious misconduct levelled by Marks against the liquidators were “entirely spurious”.

Marks was joined in his application by Henry Honiball, with both ordered to pay the cost of proceedings.

In pointing out Marks and Honiball filed the application to avoid Marks’ interrogation (initially scheduled to take place in October 2022), I assume with the removal petition out of the way that’s back on the table.

Among other things, I imagine liquidators interrogating Marks will allow them to confirm a number of things for legal purposes.

Marks and former partner Cheri Ward (together right), are believed to have run and been primary beneficiaries of funds stolen through MTI.

Pending ongoing inaction by South African authorities with respect to Mirror Trading International, civil liquidator proceedings continue.

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the outcome of Clynton Marks' attempt to remove MTI liquidators?
The Western Cape High Court rejected Marks' application to remove the court-appointed liquidators in March 2022. The court found that the application was motivated by a desire to avoid interrogation and that Marks' allegations of serious misconduct against the liquidators were entirely spurious. Both Marks and co-applicant Henry Honiball were ordered to pay proceeding costs.

Why did Clynton Marks seek the removal of the liquidators?
Marks accused the liquidators of serious misconduct and filed the removal application to avoid interrogation procedures initially scheduled for October 2022. The court determined that Marks' primary motivation was evading examination rather than addressing legitimate grievances about the liquidators' conduct.

What was the significance of the court's rejection of the removal petition?
By rejecting the removal application

🔗 Related Articles

- Brent Willis settles NewAge fraud with SEC for $175,000
- SEC: Rodrigues’ payment plan “too little too late”
- $17.9 mill DFRF final judgment, Heribeto Valdes up for $1.2 mill
- ABC Systems Review: Disner & Piccolo head up revshare Ponzi
- Paul Burks files criminal trial brief