InvestorsHub Logo

boogaloo

09/19/07 2:25 PM

#284077 RE: mhart #284076

mhart, Careful with the assumptions. Making those kinds of assumptions may not be in your best interest, don't you agree? Wouldn't you guess, due to the multiple companies, multiple people, multiple nominee accounts, etc... that the OSC needs to fully understand what everything is, where everything went, and who did what, and why, when, where, etc, etc??

They aren't in the business of just jumping to blanket-convictions without understanding ALL of the details, as far as I can tell. And getting all the details takes time, no?

C'mon man. You'd have to be part of the OSC to make those kinds of assumptions. It's just common sense. When is the last time a complicated situation was resolved very quickly by a government legal system (regardless of outcome)? Due process, my good man.

Disinterested One

09/19/07 2:30 PM

#284078 RE: mhart #284076

There may be a couple of explanations. What follows is supposition and opinion (mine).

The OSC is working on more than just SLJB. There are a limited supply of OSC person-hours available.

Andrew DeVries is an experienced con-man. As such, he has learned how to hide his ill gotten gains well. Following the money, in the case of SLJB, is likely a convoluted, international path involving several jurisdictions. Some of those jurisdictions may not give a hoot about helping the OSC in a timely manner.

There may be a forensic reckoning occurring. I was at a company that was subject to an SEC forensic audit/investigation. It took about 17 months to determine what occurred over the span of 2 months. The point is, forensic accounting is a painstaking, slow process. With all of SLJB's nominee accounts and money flowing hither and yon across borders, I am not surprised at how long it's taking.

arni

09/19/07 2:40 PM

#284084 RE: mhart #284076

hard to argue with that, Mhart.