- Boaz, called to be a crusader against corruption on the plateau, and our brother Chikwekwete, from Boterekwa,
- To you, most excellent Svodai, and to those sanctified in the heritage of this great land and called to be its people, together with all those scattered everywhere who call themselves Zimbabweans:
- Grace and peace to you.
- I always thank my ancestors for you because of the grace given you in them. For in them you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of land and with all luxury living houses in gold estates— thus confirming our testimony about Ken Sharpe among you.
- And those who have not yet bought stands from Warren Hills Luxury Golf Estate or Millennium Heights or Pomona City or even Pokugara Estates but plan to do so soon do not lack any background knowledge as they eagerly wait for the houses built on 5 billion bricks to be revealed. He will also keep your money safe to the end, so that he will be vindicated on the day of our moving in. For he is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his project.
- In the first three Chapters I have dealt with how the land was acquired. However, I must briefly depart from the land and place in context and show you something that you must know. For there was a judgement in South Africa that is relevant to the projects in Zimbabwe in that it reveals some of the places where properties have been acquired, perhaps as security for the money trusted unto the Builder of Dubai in Zimbabwe, but that is speculation.
- I mentioned in my first letter, O Svodai, that I will rely only on official information without commentary. So today I produce to you a court judgment, which appears at https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2016/365.html and is a genuine judgement of the South African High Court. You are of course free to read the rest of the judgment there, for it has been said Are the documents that I refer to not available in public and by clicking the link provided?
- All I ask is that you read, and when you get to the part where I ended (the full judgement being available at the link shown), I ask that you ask yourself only this: how did Ken Sharpe manage to have all that information on Steven Sudgen but for the Grace of the LORD?
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 34305/2015
In the matter between:
SUGDEN, STEVEN
Applicant
and
HARO TRADING (PTY) LTD Respondent
JUDGMENT
MOSHIDI, J:
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an opposed application in which the applicant seeks the winding-up of the respondent, as well as costs.
THE PARTIES
[2] The applicant, on his version, is a Zimbabwean citizen and businessman. The respondent is a company duly registered and incorporated in accordance with the company laws of the Republic of South Africa, with its registered address in Randburg, Gauteng Province. In the founding papers, the applicant (Sugden Steven) alleged that the shareholding of the respondent, is as follows: Mr Kenneth Raydon Sharpe (“Sharpe”), 50%; Tatiana Ellis and Johannes Jakobus Ellis (“Ellis”), 25%; and the applicant, 25%. In spite hereof, the applicant continued to allege that:
“The share register of the respondent reflects Kenneth Raydon Sharpe (‘Sharpe’) as a 100% member of the respondent.”
As shown later below, the contentions of the applicant, in respect of both the shareholding of the respondent, as well as his true identity as applicant in these proceedings, are disputed.
[3] However, for present purposes, the applicant alleged that the respondent is justly, truly and lawfully indebted to him in the sum of R6 169 410,00 (six million one hundred and sixty nine thousand four hundred and ten rand) which is made up as follows:
“R931 910,00 (nine hundred and thirty one thousand nine hundred and ten rand) being the amount disbursed by me for and on behalf of the respondent for maintenance, rates and taxes and other amounts owed by the respondent in respect of an immovable property owned by the respondent being Portion 1 of Erf 3268 Bryanston Extension 7, held under Title Number T103891/2008 situated at 2 Trallee Road, Bryanston (‘the Bryanston property’); R5 237 500,00 (five million two hundred and thirty seven thousand five hundred rand), in respect of monies lent and advanced for the capitalisation of the respondent and to acquire properties.”
[4] In regard to the security for the above alleged indebtedness, the applicant contended that, the respondent ceded, transferred and made over to him, its rights, title and interest in and to a Sectional Title Unit being Unit 7, Taranga, held under certificate of Sectional Title number ST6091/2013 (“Unit 7”).
[5] The applicant contended that in order to perfect such cession he was authorised to either take transfer of Unit 7, and to have it registered in his name, alternatively to register a covering mortgage bond over Unit 7 in the amount of R3 200 000,00 (three million two hundred thousand rand). The Deed of Cession, relied upon by the applicant, is attached to the founding papers, as annexure “FA1”, and was signed by the “respondent’s managing director, 100% registered member Sharpe”.
[6] By way of his alleged background circumstances, the applicant in brief, contended that: during the period 2008 to 2012, he advanced to the respondent moneys to purchase properties. Three properties were purchased, being the Bryanston property, and two Units in the Sectional Title Scheme Taranga. When it became clear that the respondent would not be able to pay its debts to him, the respondent said that it was agreed between the shareholders Sharpe, Ellis and himself that: Ellis would sell his 25% shareholding in the respondent to the applicant for US $140,000 (one hundred and forty thousand US dollars); the respondent would acquire from the applicant his 50% shareholding, after the applicant had acquired the Ellis 25% for applicant’s claim against the respondent in exchange for which the applicant would take transfer of the Unit; and the nett result would be that the applicant would have relinquished his shares in the respondent, and would have no further claim against the respondent, but would be the sole owner of the Unit 7. On this basis, so the applicant contended, he continued to ensure that all liabilities incurred by the company in respect of the Unit were paid.
[7] It is not in dispute that on 20 April 2015, the applicant’s attorneys of record (“Fluxmans”) addressed to the respondent a letter of demand claiming payment of the above amounts. The letter, in parts read as follows:
“Despite numerous undertakings to refund to our client the aforesaid amounts and a subsequent agreement to transfer an apartment being Number 7 Taranga Apartment in Cape Town to our client in settlement of the full aforementioned, indebtedness Haro Trading 10 (Pty) Limited has refused and/or neglected to sign the necessary documentation to give effect thereto. Having regard to the aforegoing notice is hereby given Haro Trading 10 (Pty) Limited in terms of section 345 of the Companies Act No 61 of 1973 read with schedule 5, section 9 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (sic), that you within a period of 3 (three) weeks calculated from the day after receipt by you of this letter, pay or secure or compound for payment the aforementioned sum, to our reasonable satisfaction, failing which, you will in terms of section 344(f) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973, be deemed to be unable to pay your debts and be liable to be placed under compulsory liquidation by order of the High Court of South Africa …”
The respondent rejected the applicant’s demands and threatened to oppose any litigation initiated by the applicant.
[8] Prior to filing an answering affidavit, the respondent, filed on Fluxmans Attorneys, a notice in terms of Rule 7(1) of the Uniform Rules, and in which the respondent disputed the authority of Fluxmans purporting to represent the applicant. The respondent also filed a notice in terms of Uniform Rule 47(1) which required the applicant to furnish security for the respondent’s costs. The grounds on which security for costs was sought will become more relevant later below. Its suffices to mention that the applicant rejected out of hand both notices under Rules 7(1) and 47(1) of the Uniform Rules.
THE ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT
[9] In the answering papers, as well as in the Rule 47(1) security for costs application, the respondent raised a number of defences, both in limine, and on the merits of the application. The essence of the points in limine came to this: Fluxmans Attorneys are not authorised to act on behalf of the applicant; the applicant is fraudulently purporting to be a person by the name of “Steven Sugden”, when in fact his real name is “Stanislav Sytchev”; the applicant is committing a fraud, in these proceedings about his true identity. He has stolen the identity of another individual who is an electrician by trade, who was born in Aldershot in the United Kingdom, and who now apparently resides in Tunbridge Wells, in the United Kingdom. Further that the applicant is currently under investigation both in the United Kingdom and in Zimbabwe. The applicant, was in fact born with the real name, Stanislav Sytchev, in Belarussia.
[10] In support of the above allegations, the respondent, has attached several annexures to the answering papers. The first is applicant’s passport, confirming applicant’s Belarustian citizenship and identity. The second is the applicant’s South African marriage certificate. Therein it was alleged that the applicant entered South Africa on his Belarustian passport. In order to secure permanent residence in South Africa, he married Ms Bekizandla Patience Ndhlovu (“Ndhlovu”) on 13 June 1997. In this regard the marriage certificate was attached. It was also contended that the applicant re-married, without having become divorced from Ndhlovu, to a Zimbabwean resident, Ms Tarryn Crundell (“Crundell”), in Johannesburg on 15 November 2014. For the purposes of the latter marriage, it seemed that the applicant used his Zimbabwean identity, and married under the name in the present application, i.e. Steven Sugden. In addition, a copy of the applicant’s South African identity document, reflecting his identity number as 7208105247080, and date of birth as being 10 August 1972, was attached. The country of birth is reflected as Ukraine. Furthermore, a copy of an extract from a British passport in which the applicant is now recorded as being “Steven Paul Sugden”, born in Aldershot, United Kingdom on 20 May 1974, was attached. Furthermore, the respondent attached, what it called, a copy of the applicant’s false Zimbabwean passport in which his new name, i.e. Steven Sugden, is reported and in which he is recognised as having been born in Goromonzi in Zimbabwe on 20 May 1974. Furthermore, the respondent, attached to the answering papers what appeared to be an application by the Zimbabwean Republic Police for a search warrant against the applicant, confirming his use of other names, which is dated 18 July 1998. The annexure suggested that one Detective C/Inspector Modariwa of the Criminal Investigation Department, “have reasonable grounds to believe that STA8 with unknown names and residence unknown as well … This accused is believed to be in possession of drugs like cocaine, ecstasy and dagga …” Furthermore, the respondent attached a further search warrant in which the date is unclear, but in respect of the premises and the person of STA8 Sytchev. It was further contended that the applicant is currently the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation for fraud and stolen identity. The applicant was arrested in Harare, Zimbabwe, on 30 September 2015, and is currently out on bail. His bail conditions include that he must report to the police there each Friday. Also attached, were newspaper publications of the widely published arrest and investigation of the applicant in the Herald newspaper based in Zimbabwe. For all the above, annexures are attached. The respondent also contended that the applicant’s response to the Rule 7(1) notice of the Uniform Rules of Court, that “there is no reason to doubt the authority of Fluxmans Inc to act on my behalf, the applicant has deposed to a founding affidavit and it is clear that from the said affidavit that Fluxmans Inc is authorised to act on behalf of the applicant”, did not comply with the provisions for proof of its authority, which would normally be in the form of a power of attorney.
[11] For all the above contentions, the respondent alleged in the answering papers, that the applicant is not in fact Steven Sugden as he purports to be in the founding affidavit, and upon which Fluxmans relies as a basis for its answer to the challenge in Rule 7. Furthermore, that Fluxmans are purporting to represent a person fraudulently calling himself “Steven Sugden” but who is in fact “Stanislav Sytchev”, and cannot possibly hold a mandate for Steven Sugden, who likely has no knowledge of the present liquidation application, or for the appointment of Fluxmans.
[12] The other point in limine raised by the respondent, is substantially the same as the first one. The emphasis is on the submission that the Court cannot, countenance or consider an application, such as the present one, by a person fraudulently purporting to be somebody else. That the application is immediately tainted with fraud. The respondent also made certain allegations in regard to the merits of the application, which I prefer to deal with later below.
THE REPLYING PAPERS
[13] In the replying affidavit, which was filed out of time, and for which the applicant sought condonation, on certain grounds, the applicant made limited submissions, but also dealt with the merits of his application. The condonation ought to be granted, which I hereby do.
[14] In respect of the points in limine, the applicant persisted that he was the true applicant. He, however, conceded that the criminal proceedings against him commenced only in September 2015, after the launching of the present application. He confirmed that he was arrested in Zimbabwe on charges of fraud during September 2015, and released on bail, and that the criminal proceedings are still pending. The applicant denied that he has committed an act of identity theft, but that such allegations are sub judice as they form the subject-matter of the ongoing criminal proceedings in Zimbabwe.
[14] The applicant alleged that he is in fact Steven Sudgen, which is known to both the respondent, and its attorneys of record, Thomson Wilks Inc. The applicant said that he was born in Zimbabwe on 20 May 1974, and is a citizen of that country. He is not Stanislav Sytchev as alleged by the respondent, and he denied knowing or marrying Ndhlovu. He is married to Tarryn Crundell from 7 November 2014. The marriage took place at the Harare Magistrate’s Court. He and Sharpe, the deponent to the answering affidavit, are de facto business partners in a number of business ventures and they jointly own an immovable property in Cape Town, South Africa. In this property transaction, they were represented by Mr Stephen Thomson of the respondent’s attorneys. For this, and other reasons, the applicant alleged that Thomson Wilks ought not to be acting for the respondent given the clear conflict of interests. For his contentions that he is in fact Steven Sugden, the applicant attached various annexures to the replying papers. These included a copy of a judgment handed down by the High Court of Zimbabwe in re: AI International Ltd v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority on 21 October 2015. The judgment seemingly made certain adverse credibility findings against Sharpe.
- While you ponder that, please consider this: does Chapter 1 not say that Augur Investments OU was a company registered in Estonia? Does it not say in Chapter 1 and 2 of the Chronicles of Ken Sharpe that one Oleksandr Sheremet was one of the directors of Augur Investments OU in Estonia? And I know, O Svodai, that your esteemed self knows that which must come, but I will say it anyway: when a person is designated as ‘one of’ it means there are others, does it not?
- And so, while Ken Sharpe, the Builder of Dubai in Zimbabwe, did inform the South African court that there was a Stephen Sugden who was not the applicant above, but an innocent Englishman in Tunbridge Wells London, it seems the fault of none other than Stephen Sugden himself that he omitted to mention that he too, as Stephen Sugden, was one of the officers of Augur Investments OU. Fantastic coincidence no doubt. Was the Stephen Sugden of Augur Investments OU the same innocent jobber in Tunbridge Wells London? THis has not been verified.
- But, who are to guess, when publicly available sources can shed more light on this mystery? Please look at p.42 of this resource https://www.rulit.me/books/deception-the-untold-story-of-east-west-espionage-today-read-335007-42.html and decide whether (a) it is possible that Ken Sharpe in South Africa did not know Stephen Sugden or (b) it is more likely that not only did he know him, but that the information he knew existed served as useful kompromat when the latter sought to cash out.
“At first sight, the now defunct company Southern Union appears to have done little of consequence. Founded in 2002, its declared activities were wholesale trade in food ‘including fish, crustaceans and molluscs’ and ‘other monetary intermediation’. It bears the same name as a former large money-transfer firm based in Zimbabwe, run by a bank close to that country’s ruling authorities, which transferred millions of pounds a month, often using ingenious financial mechanisms to avoid currency-control rules and local hyperinflation. The British Southern Union published its last accounts in 2009 and was wound up on 1 February 2011. A Steven Sugden, born on 20 May 1974, became a director in 2002, also registered at the Chapmans’ address in Stoke Newington. An outsider might wonder if having a lodger in the couple’s one-bedroom flat was rather a tight fit. In 2006, Mr ‘Sugden’, according to company documents, moved to Dublin.
Had Ms Chapman not been unmasked as a spy, Southern Union and its directors would have escaped scrutiny. Yet the documents I have obtained and the evidence of witnesses suggest a tangled story reeking of identity theft, money laundering and secret-service dirty tricks. The story starts with a prominent Zimbabwean businessman called Ken Sharpe, who is a friend of Ms Chapman’s father. Mr Kushchenko introduced Mr Sharpe to his Russian wife, Joanna, a former dancer.[37] In 2002 the Chapmans honeymooned in Zimbabwe, staying with the Sharpes. Most whites in Zimbabwe fare poorly. But those close to the regime can flourish mightily. American diplomats say Mr Sharpe is friendly with the regime of the Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe, and active in controversial construction schemes and also the gemstones trade. ‘In a country filled with corrupt schemes, the diamond business is one of the dirtiest,’ said a cable published on WikiLeaks, snappily entitled ‘Regime elites looting deadly diamond field’.21 It would be easy to see why someone involved in such business might feel at home in Russia, and be disinclined to open his business affairs to scrutiny. At any rate, Mr Sharpe declined to respond to questions. The Sharpe family is clearly connected with the London company bearing the Southern Union name. Ken Sharpe’s sister-in-law Lindi Sharpe is listed on a document from September 2002 authorising the appointment of a director. This is puzzling. A search of Companies House shows no Lindi Sharpe connected with Southern Union.22 It is not clear therefore how she was in a position to make such an appointment. In 2006 she and a Kenneth Sharpe were listed on the UK electoral roll at an address in London.23 Nobody there responded to questions.
By Mr Chapman’s admission, Southern Union was the couple’s principal means of support in the early years of their marriage. It paid him £40,000 a year plus a £10,000 payment in return for becoming a director.24 That is not necessarily sinister: it could just have been a generous father-in-law asking an old friend to make sure that the newly-weds had an income. Mr Sharpe strenuously denies any wrongdoing, or indeed any connection with the UK end of Southern Union. He has said he was a client of the Zimbabwean end of the operation, but did not found it, operate it, or benefit financially from it. But according to Mr Chapman, his Southern Union, as well as handling large numbers of transactions with southern Africa, chiefly Zimbabwe, also made payments on the direct instructions of Ken Sharpe. A foreign intelligence service needing to send money to pay sources and fund operations would have found the company’s capabilities interesting.
The links in this chain are individually just curiosities. Why are Russians and Ukrainians involved in what looks like a large money-smuggling operation in Zimbabwe? That could just be people from one corrupt country turning a profit in a place with a similar business culture. But the story is about more than that. One of this operation’s patrons appears to have been a Harare-based Russian intelligence officer – Ms Chapman’s father. That links the world of Russian espionage (itself often overlapping with organised crime, as we have seen in previous chapters) with the questionable money-transfer business in Harare. The nature of that business is odd too. As noted, spy agencies love the ability to make untraceable payments for clandestine purposes. Finally, the British dimension adds extra spice. In short, an enterprise able to make large numbers of effectively untraceable transactions all over the world, based in one of the most lawless countries imaginable, and with personal ties to Russian intelligence, was operating under the noses of the British authorities. It also had a phantom owner.
Within a month of his marriage breaking up Ms Chapman’s husband Alex ceased to be a director. The only remaining director then was Mr ‘Sugden’. The name, date of birth and signature fit a man of that name, a married father of two who works in the telecoms business in Tunbridge Wells – but the Kentish Mr Sugden has never met the Chapmans or heard of Southern Union.25
An obvious place to find answers to these questions would be Southern Union’s accountants, Manningtons of Heathfield, East Sussex. But its senior partner Alan Staples, whose signature appears on the company documents, says he has no instructions that permit him to answer my repeated questions about the circumstances in which his reputable firm registered the company; or whether he or colleagues met in person with anyone purporting to be ‘Steven Sugden’; or took any steps to verify his identity. The main bank involved was HSBC. It declines to comment on whether it has ever had a banking relationship with Southern Union or any company trading under that name. Mr Chapman declines to comment on the circumstances in which ‘Mr Sugden’ became a co-director, or indeed on anything relating to Southern Union. It is unclear why the signature used by the director ‘Steven P. Sugden’ varies between documents but on some occasions is the same as the signature of the real Mr Sugden of Tunbridge Wells.
All this is odd enough. But the mystery deepens when we follow Mr ‘Sugden’ on his purported move to Ireland. The trail leads to Rossmore Grove, a cul-de-sac in the plush Templeogue south-western suburb of Dublin, coincidentally not far from the Russian embassy. According to documents at Companies House in London, Mr Sugden moved there in 2006, first ostensibly to number 10, then to number 12. This is odd. Templeogue is misspelled on more than half a dozen documents. One thing that people tend to get right is their own address. Much odder is that James Farrell, the owner of 10 Rossmore Grove for the past thirty years, has never heard of either a Steven Sugden or of Southern Union. The neighbouring house, 12 Rossmore Grove, was until recently rented out to a number of East European (mainly Polish or Lithuanian) migrant workers. Nobody there recalls a Steve Sugden either. (Nor, incidentally, have the British or Irish authorities approached the occupants.) Only on 1 September 2010, more than a month after the spy scandal broke, did someone purporting to be Steven Sugden apply to have Southern Union struck from the register. It was dissolved on 1 Feburary 2011.
A strange clue to this mystery comes from Zimbabwe, where a Steven Sugden works for Mr Sharpe, at his company Augur Investments, a Ukrainian company registered in Estonia. A profile for a ‘Steven Sugden’ on an obscure social-networking site called Hi5 claims the same 20/05/74 birth date as that cited in the company documents (and belonging to the real Mr Sugden of Tunbridge Wells). The Hi5 profile also had two other notable features: it said that the Zimbabwean Steven Sugden was based in Dublin and listed his languages as English and Russian.26 What happened next could be seen as a panicky attempt to cover tracks. I identified and contacted (by Twitter, Facebook and email) the ten or so friends listed on the site. Within twenty-four hours, the mysterious Zimbabwean Mr Sugden cancelled his membership of Hi5, deleting the profile.[38] After a few initial responses, none of the friends was prepared to give any details of Mr Sugden’s background or to confirm his identity. Also within twenty-four hours of my enquiries starting, someone deleted an entry for a Steve Sugden based in Dublin on another social networking site, namesdatabase.com,27 claiming him to be part of the ‘Class of 1992’ from Blackrock College, a leading Dublin secondary school. (Blackrock College School says that nobody called Steven Sugden ever studied there.) A request for contact to a Skype address for a Stephen P. Sugden in Zimbabwe went unanswered. A Twitter feed in the name of stephenpsugden has been protected so that outsiders cannot read it. An email then arrived, in lamentable English, reading as follows:
My name is Samantha Procter, i am an assistant to Mr Sugden; It is my understanding that you are trying to contact mr Sugden in order to discuss matters related to the book you are currently working on; Mr Sugden is currently away from the office. Please may you forward all relative information to me, which i will bring to the attention of Mr Sugden upon his return;
Repeated requests for clear answers to my questions brought belated and inconclusive replies and then a threat of legal action.
An innocent explanation for this could go as follows. By an unlikely coincidence, two people, both called Steven P. Sugden, share the same date and year of birth and remarkably similar signatures. One of them is from Tunbridge Wells, the other genuinely from Zimbabwe. The latter, who just happens to speak Russian, becomes a director of a London-based company established through questionable means by a relative of his boss. He initially uses the address of a one-bedroom flat rented by his friends the Chapmans, protégés of his boss, and thereafter gives a forwarding address in Dublin. He does so carelessly, misspelling the suburb and even getting the house number wrong until he later corrects it. For prankish reasons he establishes some phoney credentials on the internet purporting to show that he was at school in Dublin. When outsiders start asking questions, he takes fright and clumsily covers his tracks.
Another more sinister version could be that Ms Chapman, in cahoots with her father, was involved in a front company in London that moves money around either on SVR business or as part of some private scheme involving Russian officials and their foreign funds. One director is an employee of her father’s friend, a Russian masquerading as a Zimbabwean who has bolstered his flimsy invented identity with genuine personal data from a real person of the same name in the UK. He has created phoney internet clues to add authenticity. When Ms Chapman moves on, so does Mr ‘Sugden’, giving a misspelled – and misnumbered – Dublin address. My enquiries arouse first alarm and then attempts to escape scrutiny. Without answers from the Zimbabwean Mr Sugden it is hard to rule out either version.
Precisely what bits of Russia’s foreign espionage effort may have been involved, or for that matter how much of Zimbabwe’s natural wealth was plundered, can only be a matter of speculation. The operation seems a bit sloppy by the traditionally high standards of Soviet and Russian tradecraft. Why use a living person’s identity? Why give two successive next-door addresses (in each case misspelled) in Dublin (another address for a Southern Union company, in Northampton, was also misspelled).28 Britain’s Security Service started an investigation but soon dropped it. It hunts spies, not criminals. Although its officials punctiliously refuse to discuss operational matters, on or off the record, I infer that it believes Mr ‘Sugden’ to have used a rather sloppy mixture of SVR techniques for commercial, not espionage purposes. If so, that exemplifies the blurred boundaries between Russian officialdom and wider business interests.
What is clear, however, is the damage done to entirely innocent bystanders. Steven Sugden’s name is still listed at Companies House as a director of three defunct companies (Southern Union, Intercon Trading and Africa Connection). The real, Kentish Steven Sugden is not directly out of pocket, though investigating the issue has cost him and his family considerable time and worry. Anyone doing a credit check on him might note, for example, that the companies had on occasion been less than punctilious in submitting their annual reports and accounts; an outstanding loan of £12,000 might also affect his creditworthiness in some eyes. Companies House is unwilling to delete him from their records; the police are unwilling to accept that a crime was committed; Britain’s Security Service (MI5) has asked him to cease his own investigations into the matter in order not to jeopardise its own, which has fizzled out. The blameless Mr Farrell, and the Crowe family that own 12 Rossmore Grove, have had the addresses of their properties used in a way that is certainly fraudulent and looks sinister. In short, law-abiding people can have their identity and address stolen by the Russian secret service or (at a minimum) its officers’ family cronies, and used for clandestine, or even nefarious, purposes, and when this is uncovered, nobody will do anything to help. I return to this subject in the conclusion. None of these awkward questions has clouded Ms Chapman’s return to Russia.”
- It seems that there are more issues to do with this man who is going to build Dubai in Zimbabwe, issues that make it possible to see that his vision must definitely succeed.
- Because, O Svodai, how can it be anything but the LORD’s grace that he carries on winning in all courts, home and away?
- Surely the LORD does nothing without revealing his path to his messengers the Prophets?
Advocate Tinomudaishe Chinyoka
You can see where it all started in Chapter 1: https://tinochinyoka.com/the-chronicles-of-ken-sharpe-builder-of-dubai-in-zimbabwe/
