|
Much has been said and written in regard to the “arrest” of the alleged 4 accused in relation to an Interpol red notice and the incidents in Jakarta and Philippines. Unfortunately, the entre incident has not been clarified nor has it been put to rest in the same way as the ensuing cases which entirely clear the alleged 4 accused from any issue, offence or misdoing. The purpose of this clarification is to state the facts and reasons for the cases, and explain the matter up to their vindication.
Sometime in 2004, a civil action was commenced in Philippines against the alleged 4 accused. The civil action was commenced by 2 previous shareholders (“the 2 previous shareholders”) of a company in which 2 of the alleged 4 accused were also shareholders.
The purpose of the action by the 2 previous shareholders was in attempt to obtain payment for their shares, which they were not entitled to in any event. The 2 previous shareholders then escalated their civil claim to a criminal claim in early 2005 by making the claim into an alleged charge of “fraud conspiracy” (Estafa). We believe this to have been done by perpetration of an abuse of court process, tainted with impropriety, by the 2 previous shareholders.
Despite the 4 alleged accused persons having lawyers on record at all times, no notice was given to them of the “criminal” case. Thus, without their knowledge, 4 warrants of arrest were issued against the 4 alleged accused on the “charge” of Estafa in 2006/early 2007.
The warrants were then, by some bizarre consequence, placed on Interpol’s site via the Philippines police. Again this entire process was no doubt facilated and assisted by the 2 previous shareholders in their bid to extract as much money as possible for their claim against the alleged 4 accused.
A highly publicized and known event (VConference Jakarta) was scheduled to take place in Indonesia toward end April/early May 2007. None of the alleged 4 accused avoided the event and attended. The 2 previous shareholders, with assistance of a previous employee of the company, then procured the “arrest” of the alleged 4 accused in Jakarta.
The determination and resolve of the company and the alleged 4 accused was obviously tested but no one was going to give in to any extortionate bid for the release to take place. This could have easily been procured had a conscious decision against the same not been made.
Accordingly, Court proceedings commenced in the Courts of Indonesia at the behest of the Indonesian Government. The company was confident that they would be released and their names cleared.
In July 2007, almost 3 months after the incident the District Court of South Jakarta wholly released and cleared the alleged 4 accused from any charges and misdoing. This was followed by the Courts of Philippines review of the entire incident (given the Governmental review of the nature of the action involving 3 impartial and independent sovereign States namely, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines) deliberating the heinousness in which the entire incident had come to be perpetrated against the alleged 4 accused.
It was also the first time ever an extradition request had been turned down, further emphasizing the gross injustice which had been procured against the alleged 4 accused. Consequently the Department of Justice of Philippines issued a written decision clearing the alleged 4 accused. This was followed by hearing at the Court of First Instance and then the Court of Appeals in Philippines entirely clearing and vindicating the alleged 4 accused also. This depicts the fact that 2 separate Courts of 2 separate countries have both come to 1 clear aligned conclusion.
The above facts are widely (and publicly) known and reported in the public domain. The Interpol removed all name from the Interpol website altogether immediately upon the clearance of the case in 2007. Documents evidencing each of the facts stated are available, but unfortunately, focus has been centered on the negative aspect of the case not the precise nature of the facts as conclusively evidenced by Court findings. Rumor it will seem plays a greater part than actuality. We would be pleased to furnish additional details to legitimate and bona fide parties and request made.
Should you have any queries in relation to the matter or request further information from us, please contact Qi Director for Dispute Resolution and Litigation, Mr. Zaheer Merchant, at zaheer@qi-ltd.com. We trust the above suffices to clarify matters.
Court Verdict (PDF)
Jul 31st 2007 - Official Copy of Civil Case Judgement (The District Court of South Jakarta)
News Reports (PDF)
Aug 13th 2007 - Court Junks Extradition Bid in Estafa Case (Business Mirror)
Aug 13th 2007 - Charged of a Non-Existent Crime (The Philippine Chronicle)
Sep 5th 2007 - DOJ Clears GoldQuest Executives of Charges (Business Mirror)
Sep 5th 2007 - Gonzalez Clears GoldQuest International of Syndicated Estafa (Metro)
Learn More: Is QuestNet A Scam?
|