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

[wetc]

Apologies for delay, medical issue kind of snowballed after the extension I did not mean to overshoot it but I was physically unable to respond for some time, answers are below, I hope everyone understands, thank you all.

(1) What specifically makes a REPO agreement different from a normal loan?

A repo agreement in this case is a type of loan. You have many types of loans. I don't know exactly which type of loan you are referring to when you say 'normal' loan. So it's hard to compare.

(2) Do you have any explanation for why your business partner in Vontobel has continued to represent this agreement a loan?

I would imagine because the agreement is a type of loan.

(3) As required by the LDZ Contract for the disputed plots, has Raze held the required 4 monthly events in Raze Arena each month?

I believe Raze has complied with the requirements of the supplemental LDZ contract, and once the plots are returned to me, we will ensure the events are held.

Question 4a - Did Raze Holdings "make every effort to ensure the development remains lively and active with sustainable marketing and events at the expense of Raze Holdings"?

I believe so, yes.

Question 4b (to avoid confusing things by having this be at the end of the order) - If so, how?

By keeping in mind our obligations under the contract, and attempting to fulfill these to the best of our ability.

(6) Given that 40% of the points under Services & Deliverables in your LDZ contract relate to Raze Arena; marketing and events do not appear to have occurred; and the development has been generally stagnant, as evidenced in part by your inactivity; how is it that you can claim you still substantially fulfilled your LDZ contract obligations?

I don't believe the premise of your question is correct. It's my belief that Raze complied with the requirements and is committed to doing so once the plots are returned to us.

(8) Are you familiar with the clause of the Plot Regulation Act that allows eviction after 30 days of inactivity?

To some degree, yes, but I am not a lawyer.

(9) Are you aware that you met this threshold at the time the plots were evicted?

It's my understanding the clause only applies to the title holder of the plot, which was not me at the time. If you are asking me whether I had not logged in for 30 days at the time of the eviction, then that could be very well possible since my PC is broken at the moment.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor, please clarify whether you wish to allow this testimony to be included in this case now that we’ve progressed.


If so, and the testimony is not to be stricken for being past the extended deadline, I would like to issue the following objections:

Question 1 - Unresponsive answer. The witness can reasonably understand what a normal loan is from the question, especially within the context of a trial.

Question 3 - Unresponsive answer. The witness did not answer the question asked. I must also motion to strike the response that was made, since it is unnecessary commentary that does not address the actual question asked.

Question 4b - Unresponsive answer. The witness has again failed to provide details through what appears to be an intentionally vague response.

Question 9 - Unresponsive answer. The witness instead provided a claim about the Plot Regulation Act and then a non-answer.


I would request the witness be ordered to actually answer the questions, if Your Honor chooses to proceed with maintaining this testimony. However, I would like to voice the concern that the witness has already missed one deadline, with an extension, and while we empathize with his real world circumstances, we are concerned about another 48-72 hour delay, or more, in response to these questions if our objections are sustained.

 

[Westray]

The Court has reviewed the late responses submitted by the witness, Jack Walker, and the objections raised by the Defence.

While the testimony was submitted past both the original and extended deadlines, the Court has determined that it will be admitted into the record, citing:

• The central relevance of Mr. Walker to the contractual relationship at the heart of this dispute,
• The principle that material facts should be weighed on their merits, not excluded solely due to procedural missteps; and
• The fact that contempt sanctions have already been issued for the delay.

That being said, the credibility of the witness is considered diminished due to both the untimeliness and the vague, often non-responsive nature of several answers. While the Court recognizes the personal situation that prevented the witness from responding in time, the short response to these questions show minimal effort to engage with this case despite given ample time.

On the objections and request to order the witness to re-answer the questions, such is overruled in the interests of timely justice. The ability of the witness to engage with the trial appears limited, and he has demonstrated a general unwillingness to answer even under court order. Further time spent pursuing clarification from the witness is unlikely to yield substantive results and would unduly delay proceedings.

While the Defence’s objections are noted and not without merit, the Court finds that compelling further engagement from this witness would serve neither justice nor efficiency. We have already spent a significant degree of time simply trying to obtain a response from these witnesses, and cannot carry on in this manner of constant clarification.

The submitted responses will be evaluated as-is, with appropriate weight and the lack thereof assigned to their content. Jack Walker is dismissed as a witness from this case, and I offer him best wishes on resolving his personal situation.

The Defence has 48 hours to provide a list of questions to their witnesses.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

I was unable to reply to this case in time due to a forums issue. Documentation has been submitted to Your Honor to prove this issue. Under the presumption these questions may still be asked:


Mr. Cofys, I appreciate you taking the time to testify in this case.

(1) How does collateral typically work in the Azalea banking system, in a situation where an individual is taking out a loan and putting up an asset for collateral?

(2) To expand on the first question - is collateral typically transferred to the bank in this situation?

(3) Who retains ownership of the asset, for the duration of the loan?

(4) Drawing from your qualifications as a BoA member, and reading the ticket provided as evidence by the Plaintiff - would you believe the Plaintiff's loan model matches the loan model you have described above?

(5) To your knowledge, both as a BoA member and as an operations manager for the largest bank in the Azalea Isles, are REPO agreements a loan type typically used in the Azalea Isles?


Mr. Wolfe, thank you for your time here.

(1) Did Vontobel's representative, Omegabiebel, represent the alleged repurchase agreement as anything other than normal loan in his ticket with the Ministry of Urban Development?

(2) Why are business plots required to be registered as such with the Ministry of Urban Development?

(3) While Minister for the Ministry of Urban Development, did you believe Raze Holdings had substantially fulfilled their contractual obligations under the LDZ Contract?

(4) Omegabiebel claims MUD told him that the eviction fee is paid out to the owner of the plot. According to the ticket the Plaintiff has provided as evidence, this statement was made by Westray. Was Westray an employee of the Ministry at the time this statement was made?


Ms. Intruder, I appreciate you testifying today.

(1) Can you explain your qualifications to be testifying on banking topics to the court?

(2) Have you ever heard of a repurchase agreement being done in the Azalea Isles?

(3) What is the usual type of secured loan done in the Azalea Isles, from your experience?

(4) As a banking executive, presented with the ticket the Plaintiff has submitted as evidence, would you be able to discern it was a repurchase agreement and not the type of loan described in Question 3?

(5) Is collateral usually transferred for the usual type of secured loan in the Azalea Isles?

(6) Which party retains ownership of the collateral, for the duration of the loan, under the usual type of secured loan: the borrower or the lender?


Mr. Crumplesnatch, thank you for your presence today.

(1) What were the reasons for the eviction of the disputed plots?

(2) Do eviction fees get paid to the legal owner of the plot, or the current in-game holder?

(3) Why is business registration required for business plots?

(4) Do you believe Raze Holdings had substantially fulfilled their contractual obligations under the LDZ Contract?

 

[Crumplesnatch]

(1) What were the reasons for the eviction of the disputed plots?
The reasons for eviction were twofold.

1. Jack Walker had exceeded the threshold for inactivity and this was legally no longer able to own these plots.

As the land was required by contract to be owned by Raze, we followed the process as defined in the Plot Regulation Act to offer the plot to another employee of RAZE, however none existed and so the plots were legally required to be seized.

The other reason was the illegal transfer to Omegabiebel. These plots were required to be owned by RAZE so their transfer was improper and illegal. We had introduced the business registration process for plots a week before eviction, and Vontobel did not attempt to register, thus converting the plots into player-registered, which means Vontobel were not the legal owners, loaners, or holders.

Additionally, the funds paid to Mr Walker in his loan did not enter the company accounts, and we're instead transferred to his own personal accounts. Given the plots were not his personal property, the funds being given to him personally gave the strong impression of criminal fraud, however that is not something MUD has jurisdiction over.

To summarise, the plots were transferred out of his name illegally and in breach of contract, and had they been in his name, we were legally required to seize them via eviction.

(2) Do eviction fees get paid to the legal owner of the plot, or the current in-game holder?
Due to the nature of the process, eviction fees are paid to the individual who is holding the plots.

(3) Why is business registration required for business plots?
As stated in the Plot Requirement Act, plots owned by businesses can be registered to discount them from a citizens legal limit. It also requires us to keep a register of this, something which I am sorry to say I did not introduce in my first term as minister - nor did my immediate predecessor or the individual who followed him. I introduced the register as legally required and made a public announcement in my capacity as Minister. I gave a 7 day grace period for existing registrations to be re-registered before the eviction took place, and Vontobel did not once attempt to complete this registration, where numerous other businesses succeeded.

The reason we require business registration is so that in the event of the death of disappearance of a Business owner, having a registration allows us to ensure plots are kept within the ownership of the business rather than evicted incorrectly.

(4) Do you believe Raze Holdings had substantially fulfilled their contractual obligations under the LDZ Contract?
I do not. The contract required that RAZE host four events each month in a 6 month period, totalling 24 events. To my knowledge, only one such event has ever been hosted.

The contract stated that RAZE additionally were required to return any non-expensed funds from the initial financial grant given to them. I have been unable to find any record of these expenses and thus have no breakdown or knowledge of what was spent and what has been failed to be repaid.

Regardless of that the contract stated that if the project failed to be completed by 25/01/25, the financial grant would be repaid. This project was in fact late, but no repayment of funds has ever been recorded.

MUD received the project late, with no repayment of funds for lateness or for unexpended costs, and was not given the 98% of the events contractually required. This cannot be considered a substantial fulfillment.

 

[Cofys]

1. Collateral is typically only a safety net. If someone can’t pay back their loan, the bank can take the asset they put up and could go after it in court if needed.

2. The collateral stays with the person who borrowed unless they stop paying or break the loan agreement. That’s when it might move to the bank, but typically only then.

3. The borrower keeps ownership as long as they’re fulfilling their contractual obligations related to it, like making the scheduled payments.

4. No, the Plaintiffs loan model is not what I would consider common practice in the Isles. I have never seen any type of secured or specifically REPO loans publicly or privately advertised in the Isles, but in the history books they were typically used in high risk situations.

5. This case is the first time I’ve really seen it brought up, and it’s not something we've ever used at the bank I work at or with the BOA.

 

[Westray]

Liam Wolfe @ocg and Random Intruder @RandomIntruder You have 48 hours to answer the questions asked by the Defendant.

 

[RandomIntruder]

Liam Wolfe @ocg and Random Intruder @RandomIntruder You have 48 hours to answer the questions asked by the Defendant.

I would like to request a 24 hour extension on this due to irl travels today. My apologies I didn’t receive notification of the questions prior to the Discord ping.

 

[Westray]

Liam Wolfe and Random Intruder have an additional 24 hours from this post. Failure to respond from that time will result in contempt charges.

 

[RandomIntruder]

(1) Can you explain your qualifications to be testifying on banking topics to the court?

I am a co-owner of the Azalea National Reserves, a bank specializing in loans in the isles.

(2) Have you ever heard of a repurchase agreement being done in the Azalea Isles?

This is the first time I've ever heard of a REPO agreement in the Isles.

(3) What is the usual type of secured loan done in the Azalea Isles, from your experience?

From my experience, what we require for a secured loan would be an asset, usually plots, be put up as collateral. This would require a few conditions be met: the assets being used as collateral being owned by the same entity taking out the loan, the asset remaining in possession by the same entity taking out the loan, and should specific requirements of the loan not be met (say, missing x payments in the loan period), the loaner will take possession of the asset and both entities are thereafter free from the contract.

(4) As a banking executive, presented with the ticket the Plaintiff has submitted as evidence, would you be able to discern it was a repurchase agreement and not the type of loan described in Question 3?

No. There was no mention of a contractual agreement to repurchase the plots after repayment of a loan in the tickets. In fact, it was specifically called "collateral" by representatives for the plaintiff multiple times. Based common understanding of collateral, as highlighted in my response to the previous question, collateral is inherently owned by the person taking out the loan until either the loan is fully paid off or contract is broken and the collateral is then seized by the entity giving out the loan.

(5) Is collateral usually transferred for the usual type of secured loan in the Azalea Isles?

No, I've never heard of a preemptive transfer of ownership for a secured loan. Usually, it just means the loaner can seize the asset should the contract be broken.

However, this means that it is up to the entity giving out the loan to research whether an asset can actually be used as collateral based on my answer to question 3, especially the first two points.

(6) Which party retains ownership of the collateral, for the duration of the loan, under the usual type of secured loan: the borrower or the lender?

The borrower remains the owner of the assets used as collateral for a loan until the contract is broken and a seizure is in place. In a perfect secured loan where the borrower pays off their debts accordingly, the collateral never leaves ownership of the borrower.

Should any incident happen to the collateral during this time, the borrower is still responsible for the plot, but if they default, as there is currently no credit system in place, it's mostly a loss for the borrower (something we take into account in our loans as a banking executive).

 

[ocg]

I apologize for the delay, I was at work when I gained access to the forums again.

(1) Did Vontobel's representative, Omegabiebel, represent the alleged repurchase agreement as anything other than normal loan in his ticket with the Ministry of Urban Development?
No he did not. It was mentioned only as a loan until the court argument stating otherwise.

(2) Why are business plots required to be registered as such with the Ministry of Urban Development?
There are business plot limits and regulations. All business assets are required to be registered with MUD so these standards can be upheld.

(3) While Minister for the Ministry of Urban Development, did you believe Raze Holdings had substantially fulfilled their contractual obligations under the LDZ Contract?
No. We received absolute radio silence from Raze until long after their land was seized. No events were held, and from my research at the time no blocks were sourced through the community ALONG with money for the LDZ not being returned as required.

(4) Omegabiebel claims MUD told him that the eviction fee is paid out to the owner of the plot. According to the ticket the Plaintiff has provided as evidence, this statement was made by Westray. Was Westray an employee of the Ministry at the time this statement was made?
Westray is not an employee of MUD. He is a member of the admin team and only interacts with MUD to execute pastes and imports from an out of roleplay perspective.