Case: Adjourned Nim Surname v. Vanguard National Bank (2025) CV 04

[Westray]

The Court will be taking the Defendant's lack of response as an indication that they do not have any questions for the witnesses nor do they wish to call any witnesses.

We will move forward to the closing statements accordingly. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present their closing statement.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor,

This case is clear, and has been made only more so throughout the duration of the trial.

The Defendant's own documentation proves our case. Both parties, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, were bound by these Terms of Service. Discover Bank is NOT an entity identical to Vanguard Market Access - in fact, the Vanguard Market Access ToS specifically define accounts as only being accounts with the VMA. The Defendant's account in Discover Bank is not subject to VMA authority, and there is no power within the Discover Bank ToS that grants the Defendant the ability to freeze the Plaintiff's funds. The Defendant's actions have violated their own ToS, since they did not notify the Plaintiff of transactions they considered "suspicious," and they acted outside the scope of their legal authority under the contracts when they chose to freeze his account.

The Defendant has continually fallen back on the idea that the Plaintiff committed fraud and attempted to steal money from the Defendant. They claim that "fraud prevention policies" given them the right to do as they please, when they please, so long as they label activity "suspicious." First and foremost - the idea that a bank can have "fraud prevention policies" that are never presented to the consumer, but that somehow supersede the contractual agreements a bank enters into, is an absurdity.

Beyond this, the Defendant's alleging of criminal activity from the Plaintiff is befuddling, at best. The Defendant claims the Plaintiff is guilty of fraud and illegal activity, and has made these claims numerous times, and yet has provided not one shred of evidence to this court to support these claims. No evidence of this has been shown here in court, and this trial has gone on for over a month. Thus, these allegations are nothing more than that: unproven allegations with nothing to substantiate them.

The Plaintiff has also proven the necessity of the prayer for relief. There are, at most, five active lawyers, with at least one being significantly minimized in his ability to take on clients, as he is the Minister of Justice. Oliver Spy, the witness we called who provided this information, also gave a clear quote on cost, stating that $500 plus 25% of monetary winnings, plus court fees, would be his fee, with additional cost if the case required more than five working days (which this case clearly has), and he has acknowledged that the going fee for other lawyers may be higher. This 25% fee lines up perfectly with why the Plaintiff is requesting $25,000 in special damages. These damages would not have been incurred has the Defendant not breached the contract, and thus no restitution would be complete without the Defendant paying the Plaintiff's legal fees. This is also why the Defendant is requested to pay court fees, as they would not have been incurred without the Defendant's actions.

The Defendant has also harmed my client directly by preventing him from progressing in the most lucrative jobs of the Azalea Isles. As testified by Nopuu Catenjoyer, the former Minister of the Ministry of Social Services, and now the Deputy Minister, certain trades cost at least $10,000 to level up to max, and the best goods and services are locked behind the highest levels. The Plaintiff has been dramatically slowed, nearly halted, in his ability to progress in these trades because of the Defendant freezing his funds. Thus, $10,000 in compensatory damages for this halting of progress and the creation of the inability of the Plaintiff to engage in the more lucrative markets of Azalea may in fact be underestimating the cost to the Plaintiff, created by the Defendant.

The evidence is clear. The Defendant acted to directly breach the contract he had with the Plaintiff. There has been no evidence provided to substantiate the Defendant's allegations. The requested damages in the Prayer for Relief directly result from the Defendant's actions.

Thus, I humbly request that Your Honor deliver a verdict in our favor, ruling that Vanguard National Bank, the Defendant, is in material breach of their contract, and that you order the Prayer of Relief fulfilled, seeing the immediate return of the Plaintiff's funds to him, with the requested damages.

 

[Westray]

The Defendant has 48 hours to present their closing statement.

@Nexalin

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Motion for Sanctions

As you can see, Your Honor, the Defendant has once again failed to show in court.

 

[Westray]

Motion for Sanctions

As you can see, Your Honor, the Defendant has once again failed to show in court.

The Court has accepted the motion for sanctions.

Seeing and the Defendant and their counsel, Nexalin, has continuously failed to respond to this case, the Court will be assigning additional charges of contempt to Nexalin. The lack of response and further engagement with the case presents a significant burden to the Court as it is unable to hear the full merits of both arguments. The Ministry of Justice is hereby ordered to fine Nexalin a total sum of $500 and jail him for 10 minutes accordingly.

 

[Westray]

Given the lack of response from the Defendant, the Court has a few clarifying questions directed to the Plaintiff before issuing judgement in this case. There are some questions left unanswered at this time, and the Court would like clarity in order to ensure that any orders it makes are specific. For instance, simply ordering an unfreezing of assets might not be clearly enforceable enough if the Court is unaware as to what specific assets need to be unfrozen. The questions are as follows:

1. The Plaintiff has asked that the Court issue an order for "the immediate unfreezing of the Plaintiff's assets" in the bank. Although this was indicated in some of the evidence, the Court would like clarification as to which assets they want unfrozen. This could include an itemized list of accounts, their monetary value, and any other relevant facts to the Court that would support the effectiveness of a potential order.
2. What steps did the Plaintiff take to resolve this matter with Vanguard National Bank before pursuing legal action, if any?
3. Did the Plaintiff initiate the transactions from Vanguard Market Access (VMA) to Discover Bank?
4. It is suggested by the bank that the Plaintiff obtained the funds in his account through alleged unlawful and fraudulent means. Could the Plaintiff please clarify as to how the funds in his account were obtained? Rough estimates as to each portion of the amounts should suffice.
5. Could the Plaintiff please explain what they meant from the statement "money print vma" when allegedly talking about the Defendant?

These questions will help inform the Court as to which damages and awards should be granted, if any. Please be advised that the responses to these questions should be truthful and honest, recalling accurate information to the best of your ability.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

1) The Plaintiff has an account with Discover Bank that has $100,000 in it. This is the account that is frozen by the Defendant, and the funds therein would need to be released to the Plaintiff.

2) Upon discovering that the account with Discover Bank was frozen, the Plaintiff inquired with the Defendant as to the reason why, and followed up several times to check the status of the Defendant's "investigation." The Defendant, however, was accusatory and uncooperative throughout this process.

3) Yes, he did. My understanding is that the funds were converted through Vanguard’s currency exchange at some point in between this process.

I would, however, like clarification from the court on this question and the questions that follow. These are questions, and points, that would have been handled by a proper defense. The Defendant has logged in multiple times, and publicly indicated in the Discord server he is still active. The court should not attempt to cobble together a defense when the Defendant has made it clear they do not wish to defend their side.

And again, the funds ceased to be under VMA's jurisdiction, as clearly outlined within the Defendant's own VMA Terms of Service we presented to the court, when the funds were transferred.

4) The funds were obtained through trading of equities on the Vanguard Market Access platform.

I object to this question as well. The Guiding Principles of Azalea Law include the principle that Possession is Nine-Tenths of the Law. To clarify for the court - "In a property dispute, in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner." There has been no testimony or documentation to the contrary that this is the case. My client should not have to clarify, arguably in violation of the guiding principles of law, how he obtained his property when the Defendant has failed to provide any compelling evidence to challenge that it is in fact the Plaintiff's property.

5) Money print/money printer is a term used in common language when an individual finds something that is typically very profitable. For example, in the Azalea Isles, one would also consider being a Miner, Lawyer, or Constructor (if that is the proper title for builders) a "money print(er)" because it tends to have immense profit capability.

 

[Westray]

In this case, the Defendant has stated that they froze the funds due to suspected fraud, which serves as a compelling enough reason for the Court to seek further clarification before handing out a verdict. While the Defendant has largely failed to respond in the latter half of the case, this does not mean the court must accept the Plaintiff’s claims without question. The Court is not seeking to present a defence to any party, but rather it is seeking to understand the full extent of the compensatory damages being asked for in this case. I would agree with your observation that the Defendant has willfully forfeited their right to defend themselves, yet I would also stress the importance of ensuring the veracity of such large financial claims.

Before issuing a decision, the Court requires more information on the current assets that the Plaintiff wishes to have unfrozen by the Defendant. In specific, I am asking for documentation as to the alleged $100,000 that "would need to be released" and details on how these assets were obtained.

This documentation can include screenshots of account balances, transaction history, and or an attestation that this $100,000 figure is a legitimate and accurate claim to assets. This clarity is necessary to establish a clear trail for the Court to award the proper compensatory damages. Once this is done, the Court is ready to move forward.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

What is below is what there is existing record of. The Plaintiff used VMA as intended, to trade securities, and then a portion of this was transferred through the currency exchange, seen in the first attached image below. The second screenshot is of the Plaintiff's accounts with VNB, currently at a value of $104,040.
So, the first screenshot is the transaction history of the Plaintiff's currency exchange, and the second figure is a screenshot of his current balance with the Defendant.

 

[Westray]

Court Verdict
Azalea Isles Civil Court (CV)

​

Case No. CV-25-04
Nim Surname (Nimq_) v. Vanguard National Bank

Position of the Plaintiff
1. The Plaintiff, Nim Surname, alleges that the Defendant wrongfully froze the funds their account with Vanguard National Bank, despite the funds being rightfully obtained through securities trading on Vanguard Market Access (VMA).
2. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has made a material breach of contractual obligations by imposing a freeze on the Plaintiff's assets in their respective account.
3. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence of fraud or misconduct, instead opting to ignore inquiries and delay the resolution of this matter.
4. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s refusal to release the funds constitutes an unjustified restriction on their property and requests the immediate unfreezing of their assets, along with damages for financial losses and legal expenses.

Position of the Defendant
1. The Defendant, Vanguard National Bank, alleges that the Defendant unlawfully obtained illicit funds on the VMA platform by abusing a bug, and thus violated the terms of service of the bank.
2. The Defendant argues that it acted within its rights to freeze the Plaintiff’s assets due to this suspected fraudulent activity as both part of its terms and its obligations as a financial institution.
3. While an answer to the complaint was given, the Defendant has largely failed to adequately participate in court proceedings, refusing to present a closing defense, present supporting evidence, or respond meaningfully to inquiries by the Court.

Court Opinion
1. The Court recognizes the authority of financial institutions to freeze accounts when fraud is reasonably suspected. However, such actions must be accompanied by a fair process, including a clear justification and a timely resolution. While the Defendant did clearly outline their fraud prevention policies and approach to the Court, they failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their suspicions, or to explain how this alleged bug was abused.
2. The Plaintiff has provided documentation verifying the legitimacy of their account balance through screenshots on their account. The Defendant, on the other hand, has failed to substantiate its claims of fraud or to present any evidence justifying the account freeze largely due to their absence in this Court.
3. The Court has been incredibly charitable to the Defendant's situation, offering them extensions, reminders, and additional opportunities to present their defence to this case. By having both parties respond to this trial, the Court would have been able to deliver a more thorough verdict. Nonetheless, precedents in previous cases, such as Crumplesnatch v. Bezzer (2024) CV 02, establish that in the event of no response from the Defendant, a default judgement is to be entered in favour of the Plaintiff. While this Defendant has made some efforts to respond, they failed to answer witness questions, respond to requests from the Court, deliver evidence, nor provide any sort of closing statement.
4. While the Plaintiff has presented a sufficient enough case to warrant relief in lack of the Defendant's response, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not effectively demonstrated that the Defendant acted with malicious intent or in bad faith. The Defendant's decision to freeze the account was based on a reasonable, albeit overly cautious, interpretation of its fraud prevention policies. Therefore, while the Court will be ruling in favour of the Plaintiff and granting much of the relief, it will not be providing the $5000 compensatory damages requested.

Decision
The Azalea Isles Civil Court hereby rules in favour of the Plaintiff, granting the following relief:

1. The Defendant, Vanguard National Bank, shall immediately unfreeze the Plaintiff's assets, including the account with a balance of $104,040, and transfer such funds to the Plaintiff, Nim Surname (Nimq_).
2. The Defendant, Vanguard National Bank, shall transfer $10,000 to the Plaintiff's counsel, Lysander Lyon (xXLordLyonXx), to cover the legal fees incurred by levying a more than one-month long case.
3. The Defendant, Vanguard National Bank, shall pay all applicable court fees, pursuant to the Miscellaneous Changes & Foreign Affairs Omnibus Act, including the initial $1000 filing fee and the witness costs.
4. The Ministry of Justice shall charge the Defendant, Vanguard National Bank, with contempt of court, for failing to respond to the Court multiple times, and issue a monetary fine of $500.

This trial is hereby adjourned. The Court thanks both parties for their time.

​

Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West

​