The difficult thing is that I don't think any of you have actually read the queries fully, especially the one dated 18/11/19. In there, the agreements with Corp destination, Fcorp, Immo and Nona are clearly stated by ASX notes:
For example, agreement with Fcorp:
The agreements with the other three customers are very similar. So as you can see the agreements are very factually clear with dollar value clearly stated. Why all the questions????
So what
@bgtaylo said:
...is absolutely and factually wrong. His claim has absolutely no merit and the only reason why he claimed such nonsense was because he simply either didn't bother to verify before stating false information as if they are facts. Most of the expenses is in fact for the acquisition of the off-the-shelves third party trading platform/software licence that presumably ISX paid for and then deployed.
The revenue was booked as the ASX notes outline.
There is not that much guess work left to do here.
@snackattack, you said:
Logic would suggests that it was obviously ISX who paid for the licence because otherwise there would be no need for the customer to have paid (allegedly) ISX for the licence. In the case for Fcorp for example, Fcorp wouldn't have paid (allegedly) ISX for the licence to the amount of 405,000 Euros if they had purchased the licence themselves. It is pretty clear and simple logic.
So then having paid for the licence and then deployed it, I think it is absolute nonsense and contradictory for ISX to have said:
By logic alone, I think it quite clear that it would be highly improbable that ISX has never had a copy of the licence, especially considering that they were the one who presumably paid for it and then deployed it.
So then why did I use the word allegedly in brackets? Because apparently it is difficult even for the ASX to reconcile the payments even using bank statements:
Remittance advices are not even provided.
They payments are not even direct from customers...
...instead they were payments derived from HongKong Lanhai, etc and when asked by the ASX as to who they are? ISX responded by saying they don't know.
