“That is an extraordinary arrangement with an extraordinary guaranteed return,” said the judge, who added that he initially “had some doubt as to the genuineness of the arrangement” but the evidence satisfied him that it was the case.
The court heard that Safi, who is believed to be in Dubai, proffered several “highly suspicious and irregular arrangements” for the repayment of the money, none of which eventuated.
Safi initially repaid $500,000, leaving $US7.2 million owing since November 5. On that day, he sent a message to the Mauritian company attaching a supposed bank confirmation that the funds were being transferred and would be cleared within 24 to 48 hours. This did not occur.
The following week, Safi claimed that the $US7.2 m had not been cleared due to unspecified “compliance issues”.
On November 18, 2025, Safi asserted he had “formal bank communication” with “a hundred per cent confirmed clearance time”, meaning the debt would be paid on Friday, November 21. Again, this did not happen.
By the end of November, Safi appeared to have given up on the bank and was sending the people at FCSL photos of what the judge described as “what appears to be a pallet of substantial amounts of cash”, which Safi said he would arrange to be delivered to FCSL.
“Although the evidence appears fantastical, it is supported by messages that Mr Safi appears to have sent stating he was in fact in the process of having the cash counted,” said the judge.
The next change of plans was that the FCSL people would have to collect the millions of dollars in cash “from certain unidentified individuals at various locations throughout Dubai and elsewhere,” said the judge.
The judge noted that it was drawn to Safi’s attention that “the circumstances were highly unusual and appeared to be illegitimate.”
Safi was also unable to provide any cogent explanation as to why the earlier bank transfers had not succeeded and was unable or unwilling to give an explanation for the sudden about-turn, said the judge.
Justice Shariff emphasised that the evidence in relation to the loan remains “untested and unchallenged” and that his ex-parte freezing orders were granted only temporarily until the claims could be fully ventilated in court.
However, the judge said that he was satisfied “that there are highly suspicious, irregular and unusual circumstances that are indicative of dishonest or other underhand conduct” that warranted the granting of the freezing orders.
Read the full article here
