Case: Pending Vontobel v. Ministry of Urban Development (2025) CV 07

[Westray]

The Court is prepared to rule on the following objections.

Objections on Questions to Omega Biebel (Omegabiebel)

• Question 2 - Objection is sustained in part. The Plaintiff may rephrase this question as to specify which company or companies, by name. @MilkCrack
• Question 9 - Objection is overruled for now. An important element of this case is plot ownership, and whether or not said witness has paid tax on a plot could construe some degree of ownership over it. Thus, it is relevant.
• Question 12 - Objection is sustained. The witness will disregard such question.
• Question 18 - Objection is overruled. Witnesses and parties in civil cases may testify as to estimates of damage. The court will weigh the bias of such testimony; cross-examination and expert rebuttal are the proper remedy.

Objections on Questions to Jack Walker (wetc)

• Question 5 - Objection is sustained. The phrasing suggests the answer.
• Question 6 - Objection is overruled. This is a present-tense question about the witness' current intent, which they are allowed to state clearly.
• Question 11 - Objection is overruled. The question is framed as "to your knowledge," which limits it to the witness’s understanding, not absolute fact.
• Question 18 - Objection is overruled. This is relevant to claims of breach of contract and potential retaliatory or improper government conduct. Whether it entitles the witness to remedies is a legal issue, but the question is material.
• Question 18 - Objection is overruled. The response will help the court evaluate what alternatives were available or could still be negotiated.

As a reminder, the witnesses are asked to answer these questions in a timely manner.

@wetc You are directed to answer questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 from the Plaintiff's counsel.

@Omegabiebel You are directed to answer questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 from the Plaintiff's counsel. You may be asked to answer question 2 if it is rephrased properly.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor, it has been over three days since the witnesses were called, and over 50 hours since they were directed to answer questions. I am motioning for sanctions against both witnesses and requesting we move on.

 

[Westray]

@wetc and @Omegabiebel You have 48 hours from this post to respond to the questions. If you do not meet this timeline, you will both be held in contempt.

 

[wetc]

1.
Q: Can you please describe your business relationship with Vontobel?

A: Vontobel is my bank of choice.

2.
Q: Did your business enter into a REPO agreement with Vontobel involving the plots B107, B108, B128, and B129?

A: Yes.

3.
Q: Can you explain what a REPO agreement is and what it involves in this context?

A: REPO stands for repurchase. The terms were that I got 500,000 dollars from Vontobel. In return, I had to pay it back with interest, and they would have ownership of the plots in the meantime.

4.
Q: Under that agreement, were the plots transferred to Vontobel (or to Omegabiebel on their behalf)?

A: Yeah, the plots were transferred to Vontobel. Omegabiebel would manage the plots, ensure the plots were compliant with regulations and wouldn't get seized.

5.
Q: Did you have the full intention to follow through with that repurchase when the agreement was made?

A: Yes, I did.

6.
Q: Do you still intend to repurchase the plots if given the opportunity today?

A: Yes, I do. I want my plots back. I spent a lot of money and time developing them.

7.
Q: As part of the agreement, did you state that any seizure of the plots would be the responsibility of Vontobel alone? And you were not liable for the seizure?

A: Yeah, I informed them that they needed to keep up with regulations, ensure that they pay taxes on the plots, and keep up with the playtime requirement. In the event of the seizure, they would end up with no plots and I wouldn't pay them if they got seized. So this lawsuit is their only recourse.

8.
Q: Has the Ministry ever indicated to you that your plots were registered as business assets?

A: I think the Ministry registry is very poorly administered. I never formally applied and didn't fill out a form. It's very clear that the plots were owned by Raze Development, and the Ministry knows that, but it has never been communicated to me that there is a registry.

9.
Q: Did the Ministry ever indicate to you, that there was a need to deregister the plots or notify the Ministry when changing ownership?

A: No, I was never informed of that.

10.
Q: To your knowledge as a property developer, has the Ministry ever communicated a requirement to deregister plots to anyone?

A: I never heard of anyone having to deregister a plot when you transfer ownership. I can't find anywhere in law or policy that even is an actual requirement or practice people do.

11.
Q: Do you believe that you were in breach of the LDZ contract with the Ministry of Urban Development?

A: No. I am not even sure what exactly the alleged breach is.

12.
Q: Did the Ministry ever directly notify you that you were in breach of the LDZ contract? If so, when did that happen, and how did they communicate that to you?

A: Nope.

13.
Q: Before the land was seized, were you given an opportunity by the Ministry to correct any alleged violation or respond in court?

A: No.

14.
Q: Had the Ministry followed the legal process and pursued a legal claim against you for breach of contract, would you have defended yourself in court?

A: Yeah, I would hire a lawyer and defend this claim.

15.
Q: If the court were to find that you partially breached the LDZ contract, would you say that you still substantially fulfilled your contractual obligations?

A: Yeah, definitely.

16.
Q: If the supplemental LDZ contract shared by the defendant were voided entirely, and both parties were returned to their original positions, would that result in the land being returned to the government?

A: No, before I signed the supplemental LDZ contract shared by the defendant, the LDZ was already granted. There is no basis to assume they would be entitled to my plots.

17.
Q: Do you believe you have the financial means to compensate the Ministry for any alleged losses due to a breach of contract rather than surrendering the land?

A: Any alleged damages would be minor and could be covered without having to sell the plots.

18.
Q: Under any circumstances, would you prefer to offer financial compensation over surrendering the plots to the Ministry?

A: I have spent a lot of time and money in the development of the plots and they are important to my business. I would at all costs ensure that the plots remain in my possession.

19.
Q: Was there a clause that outlined daily interest accumulation or penalties for default, which would directly affect Vontobel’s financial position?

A: Yeah, in the event that there was a delay in the repurchase, I would have to pay 0.3333% per day of interest on the outstanding repurchase amount.

20.
Q: If the plots were not seized, do you believe Vontobel would have this money otherwise?

A: Vontobel would have the repurchase money from me and could use that money to get similar returns, or at the very least prevent losses. If there had been a slight delay, I could have covered the additional interest.

21.
Q: Did you give the Ministry of Urban Development permission to publicly disclose the LDZ contract?

A: No, I did not.

22.
Q: Do you believe that the Ministry violated a non-disclosure clause in the contract by sharing the LDZ contract contents with the public?

A: Potentially, yeah.

23.
Q: If so, do you believe that such a breach of contract by the Ministry would have entitled you to seize assets owned by the government without a court process?

A: No, of course not. I would be arrested for theft. If people just take what they want without going through the proper procedures, it will become the Wild West. And just because the government has the power to evict people from plots because of plot regulations, that does not entitle them to weaponise those powers in their capacity as a party to a contract.

 

[Omegabiebel]

1. What is your current position or relationship with Vontobel("Volt")?
I’m the CEO of Volt and i lead all the underlying entities as well. I’m in essence the big boss of day to day operations.

3. Can you describe how and why the plots were placed under your name in the official registry?
This was to mitigate risk. The loan was specifically made to be a repurchasing agreement. In essence i bought the plots for the loan amount from wetc and then at the end of the term wetc would buy the plots back for the loan amount plus interest. Since Volt had ownership during the duration of the loan, it would be able to recoup the loan amount very quickly in case of non-payment. After all we had direct ownership and we wouldn’t need to go through litigation with associated time delays and costs.

4. To your knowledge, did the Ministry of Urban Development ever object to the plots being registered in your name prior to the seizure?
I have not received any communications regarding the plots being registered in my name.

5. Prior to the seizure, did any government official ever inform you that according to their records you were not the lawful owner of the plots?
See previous question: I didn’t receive any communications from the government regarding the plots.

6. Did you receive any warnings, notices, or requests for clarification from the Ministry before the seizure occurred?
I did not get any warning whatsoever. I did get a message from someone asking if i knew “raze development” in relation to some grant.


7. In the time leading up to the seizure, did the Ministry of Urban Development treat you as the legal, rightful and/or registered owner of the plots?
I didn’t have any communications with them, but taxes and so forth were taken out as usual.

8. Did the government provide you with an opportunity to respond to any concerns or allegations before seizing the plots?
They have not.


9. Who was responsible for paying the taxes on the plots while they were registered in your name?
My player account got taxed, but i got reimbursed by Vontobel (Volt)


10. After the plots were seized, did the government issue any form of reimbursement or compensation? If so, to whom was it sent?
They gave me about 25k in CRP money because they evicted me. MUD said it was standard procedure to pay out 20% of the value of the plot to the owner after eviction.

11. When the plots were first seized, what reason was given to you by the Ministry of Urban Development?
The reason mailed to me was that the plots were contractually required to be held by Raze and that’s why they were seized.

13. Do you believe that these explanations are in line with the agreement between you and wetc?
No.

14. Do you believe that these explenations are properly reasoned and/or consistent?
I don’t think so. They first said that I was the owner of the plots and not “raze” and that this was not allowed. Eventually they changed their reason to “wetc is inactive as primary reason and the contractual breach is the secondary reason.”

The switching up of reasons caused a lot of confusion. First they said I was the owner (with the eviction payment and everything) and then suddenly wetc is owner with his inactivity as eviction reason.


15. In your capacity with Vontobel, are you familiar with the financial agreement involving these plots and the expected revenue from them?
Yes.


16. Can you explain, in general terms, what type of income or value these plots were generating or were expected to generate for Vontobel?
Well these plots made the loan a low risk asset. The plot value makes sure that Volt will always get the money back therefore making this a very safe investment. With the plots seized this makes the loan unsecured, which we would never voluntarily do due to the extreme risk especially with a loan this big.
In case of non-payment these plots would be seized and could be sold off, rented or used for other business operations.

Additionally we’ve ran into some issues since our estimates expected the loan to be paid back now through the repurchase of the plots.





17. Since the seizure of the plots, has Vontobel lost out on daily revenue that would otherwise have been earned through the agreement?
Yes. The loan agreement had a provision where there would be a daily interest charge of 0.3333% per day of failure to repurchase. On a 500,000 AD loan this is about 1699.50 we’re missing per day.

The impact on our financial stability has been the bigger issue however. Since there have been some serious shocks in the Redmont financial system, we’ve had to pay out some pretty big withdrawals. One of these withdrawals has caused us to liquidate our echo holdings (bets on the irl market), causing us not to get any future returns on these holdings. If the loan was paid back on time this would have easily handled the withdrawal and removed the need to liquidate with even a serious margin for follow up shocks.

18. Can you provide an estimate of the total value of lost earnings since the seizure occurred on June 10th?
Since the 10th july (the repurchasing date) we’ve missed the daily late interest payment(see previous question, 1699.50AD per day), the general interest payment(3% of 500k AD totaling 15k AD).

The seizure however happened on the 24th of May according to the ingame mail I got.

19. Has Vontobel incurred additional costs or labour hours in trying to resolve the situation and seek legal redress?
We have. I myself have spent considerable time dealing with this issue and the collateral damage of having to extra manage Volts liquidity and stability.

20. To the best of your knowledge, what are the weekly costs Vontobel has incurred in terms of time and legal efforts related to this dispute?
This has taken quite a bit of effort and time, since it caused collateral damage. Conservatively estimated:

• I've spent at least 2 and a half hours directly dealing with the CRP government and MUD.
• About 2 hours of working with legal representation
• At least 4 hours managing the collateral damage such as keeping everything liquid and working with the regulator.

Keep in mind that these are conservative estimations. Especially the liquidity management has taken a significant amount of time and could easily double or triple this value depending on what you see as direct collateral damage and which are other effects.

My wage is 4k AD per month.





My apologies that the testimony took a while. I’m on vacation with no access to my pc so I’ve had to type it all out on my phone.

 

[Westray]

The Defendant may cross-examine the witnesses. Please ensure a prompt response to the Court @xXLordLyonXx

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor, I will do my best, but the Plaintiff has flooded the court with over 40 questions for just two witnesses. The defense will need time to properly read through for formulating objections and lining up any cross-examination.