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
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.