c) and d) are complete nonsense and should never have made any...

c) and d) are complete nonsense and should never have made any sense from the very beginning, I will explain to you why. The fact remains that the payments came straight from the completely unknown third party entities, so regardless whether the amounts were debited or transferred directly, they would still have come from the completely unknown third party entities. I think it ingenuous how the claim was worded, almost feels as if it was written for the sake writing it, better than leaving it blank so to speak. The consequence is that ISX is now in a situation where it can never provide proof of payments, which is catastrophic. It is very unlikely that ISX has been withholding any information that could help to exonerate it, from the ASX. The legitimacy of the revenue IS the core of the saga, it is not ancillary at all.