I don't think the market agrees with you. To draw a parallel to normal financing operations is a smoke and mirrors argument.
To use a typical financing scenario (say between GE Money and a retail buyer at Harvey Norman buying a fridge)
1. GE Money doesn't come after Harvey Norman if a customer does not pay, it goes after the customer - the contract is between GE and the customer.
2. GE will not loan money if there is no guarantee the customer must repay let alone can repay
3. GE does not hold liens over Harvey Norman's bank account
4. If a customer does not pay, Harvey Norman does not have to effectively give away another fridge to another customer off its own back and balance sheet to meet the obligations of the original deal.
None of this was explained to the market properly until the suspension was in effect and quite clearly the cash receipts were therefore an incorrect representation of true cash flow. The market was intentionally deceived with the goal of driving the share price, which by evidence of the numerous share issues, was conceivably necessary to make payments to various parties through scrip at ever increasingly valuable returns.
This was a complex fraud in my view and I would expect ASIC will most certainly hold directors responsible for their actions accordingly and thoroughly investigate criminal proceedings.
You are strangely passionate about insisting there was no wrong doing here even though the facts don't align with you?
