Shitizens are a few sips short of a full cup!
Typo? I really do feel story for him becauseand: incompetent, lying, scammer, and egotistical con man.Should scammer not be scamming?
You removed the , between lying and scammer :cop: Now it's correct.However, story in stead of sorry is still there :D
See, you're being watched closely :smuggo:
I wasn't planning on releasing this until I received some additional information, but since it's already leaked and spreading, I have released this first part anyway.CIG created a new shell corporation
Star Citizen - The $45K Refund Debacle
I'm sure we have some German auditors present, perhaps one could have a go at explaining the £650,198 contradiction in the 2015 accounts for Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd.Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd - Going Concern in 2015 accountsThere is this disclosure note about going concern in the Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd accounts for the year ending 31 December 2015. You do not ordinarily want to have to write a going concern disclosure, where the directors give their assurances to support the company because of the insolvent balance sheet. However, the disclosure does not match the balance sheet. £186,799 of net liabilities compared to £463,399 of net assets represents a difference of £650,198.I've pondered some possibilities to explain this.1. This disclosure for some reason might be based on the consolidated accounts. However, I'm not sure how this would be arrived at. I know you'd lose the inter-group transactions and the £440k investments would be reversed via journals but it shouldn't change the net position on investments. Looking at Foundry 42 Ltd and RSI INT Ltd, I'm not sure how you'd get to this difference.2. For those who don't know how some firms handle disclosures, they are often generated generically by software and then edited manually. Something may have changed late on in the accounts and the disclosure was never updated / the wrong set of accounts were sent to Erin to sign and it was never picked up. However, there was the mysterious transaction that showed a profit on disposal of intangible assets of £654,612. If this treatment were changed from a balance sheet liability to a profit and loss item late on during account preparation, along with another minor journal or two it might explain the difference and represent the disclosure being out of date.3. Something else. I guess it's this?The Mystery of Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd and the Intellectual Property.On the 1st of July 2015 CIG UK paid £1,359,185 for intangible assets, listed as Intellectual Property. At some point during the year 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 they sold intangibles for £654,612 and this was considered all profit.It would appear that these two items are not related to each other? The purchase is considered to still be worth what was paid and the disclosure suggests little activity related to it in the period 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2015.There's no correspoding entries in the subsidiaries and there is no related disclosure for either Roberts Space Industries Corporation or Cloud Imperium Games LLC. The suggestion then is that this purchase and sale concern "unrelated" parties not controlled by Chris Roberts. Another possibility is that this was a related party transaction and remains undisclosed because it was a late change to the accounts and never adjusted for, see: speculation in section on Going Concern. But that's just speculation.
I'm pretty sure I'm half of that 'we' that has looked at this before but anyway, this is the parent company. Not Foundry 42. You can basically summarise the entire activity of the parent company like so:Summary of the relevant activity of Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd, incorporation to Dec 2015Sources of funding:£710k Long Term Loans£290k Short Term Creditors£200k Shareholder Investment [1]£650k Sale of Intangibles============£1.85m TotalOutgoings:£440k Erin Roberts and others [2]£ 50k Admin Expenses£1.36m IP purchase============£1.85m TotalIt would seem most likely to me that it works backwards. They took money out. They put money in to zero out of the bank balance. So now you have a receipt of £650k that you have to account for. It poses issues. If it's a loan, the balance sheet is insolvent by ~470k (just like the disclosure claims). If you book it as income, you get the position that the accounts/balance sheet do show, however you would have to charge VAT on whatever income it is.By considering it a disposal of an intangible asset, it may avoid needing to account for VAT (which would have needed to be performed contemporaneously instead of retrospectively on trading income). If this adjustment were made late on, it would mean the disclosure in the accounts is incorrect and was never adjusted and would explain why it does not match the balance sheet. This is my main line of inquiry, does anyone know why the disclosure wouldn't match the balance sheet and yet could actually be correct? There doesn't really seem to be much to work with and this one figure is suspiciously close, throw in something like an additional late £5k accrual for accountancy fees and it would be spot on.
