Man loses bid to to recover investment lost on gold import plan

A man who lost €60,000 which he had invested in a failed plan to import gold from Sierra Leone has lost a case he filed to recover his investment.

John Cortis and Mark Anthony Portelli had decided to set up a limited liability company together with a diplomat from the Sierra Leone embassy in Libya and an experienced gold trader with a gold exporter’s licence.

The company was registered to Portelli, with the diplomat and a holding company listed as its shareholders.

Cortis had invested €60,000 in the venture after some convincing from Portelli. Cortis also made a further €4,800 outlay to cover export expenses. According to the deal, Cortis would receive all his money back, plus 33 per cent of the profits. At the time, gold was valued at US$33,000 per kilogram.

The following day, Cortis and Portelli, appearing on behalf of the registered company, signed a constitution of debt.

But after some time, having received neither gold nor profits, Cortis had asked for an explanation. Portelli had replied that the order had been cancelled and the money had been invested elsewhere.

Portelli had explained to the court that gold had risen in price, combined with the start of the rainy season and an outbreak of Ebola in Sierra Leone had made gold mining more dangerous.

Cortis took Portelli to court for repayment of the outstanding debt, at the time €52,800 but which was later partly repaid, leaving a balance of €6,284.81.

Cortis had insisted that the money had been a loan, while Portelli had argued that it had been a commercial investment.

The applicant insisted that he had entrusted his friend with the money without any particular conditions, and had signed “a paper” on the insistence of his friend.

But Portelli had said the opposite, pointing out that what had been signed had been a deed of constitution of debt with the gold trading company as the debtor, not Portelli.

The First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon, found in favour of Portelli, saying Cortis’ arguments had been unrealistic.

Cortis had based his action around a loan, not fraud, noted the court, adding that it was useless arguing that he had neither read the document he had signed nor had sought advice, as he did not know how to read or write.

In addition to this, Cortis had opted not to be named as a shareholder in the company after receiving advice that he risked losing his social benefits if he did so.

Cortis had chosen to risk his money without obtaining appropriate cover, possibly enticed by the large profit margin far in excess of interest rates on bank deposits, said the judge.

Portelli was not responsible for the failed investment, said the court, dismissing the claim.