Shorty, you have not understood Drummond's article which is sad because it is not that difficult to understand. You should understand something before offering up strong opinions on it like:
"A FALLING OUT AMONG THIEVES"
OR "a litany of shonky characters, falling out over what to me seems like shady deals"
OR "payment seems to be a series of cross ownership deals which no one appears to have honoured or had intention of honouring"
OR "deja vu. the coppers around kings cross a few years back didn't worry too much if the arseholes took each other out. saved them time and effort"
OR "let's screw the bastard! (take your pick on which one)"
OR " the grossmans, banks, suttons, finlays et al are the prime nasties. any local involvement is secondary. the whiteys are the bad guys"
All of these remarks reflect more on you than anything you are commenting about. Let me summarise for you Shorty since you confess to being "a dense old fart" who can't quite get it.
Grossman operates a foreign investment company in Indonesia. Yes, he had previously supplied product for Villa Veneto to Finlay's employer. There is nothing in the story which suggests Grossman is making any case, anywhere, let alone a claim in Indonesia alleging non-payment for goods supplied for Villa Veneto.
What the story says, is that Finlay contracted to purchase shares in Grossman's Indonesian company in 2006. For whatever reason Finlay decided not to proceed and then lodged a criminal complaint through a case broker with Bali police alleging that he ordered and paid $250,000 to Grossman upfront for goods which he has never specified and which were not delivered. Drummond's article documents various bribes paid by Finlay to advance his complaint of criminal fraud against Grossman.
Grossman says that he has never sold any goods to Finlay and that his dealings with Finlay only involved a contract by Finlay to buy shares in his company. He has documents which support that position.
Grossman points out that Finlay has never given details of what product he claims to have ordered and has provided zero evidence of the order or of the payment claimed by Finlay. The only evidence that exists is of Finlay's bribes paid to advance a bizarre case which involves claims by Finlay which are contrary to common sense and ordinary business practice. His allegations, moreover, are completely unsupported by evidence.
The last time I checked, nobody orders and pays $250,000 up front for export product without being able to say what product was ordered at what price. Nobody buys a commercial quantity of product in another country for export without a purchase order, supply contract or other documentation. Nobody pays in full up front and certainly anyone stupid enough to do so, would be sure to get documents reciepting the payment.
Grossman's only complaint is about Finlay paying bribes to advance a fabricated criminal case against him which is against common sense and entirely unsupported by evidence.
As for the question of who is being criticized by the people involved, Drummond’s article makes it clear that Grossman's beef is with Finlay and the Australian authorities who have so far refused to investigate him and not with the local authorities, some of whom have done Finlay’s bidding on the strength of payments which even he admits having made to officials.
Grossman left via Timor, it appears, because he was unable to leave Indonesia in any other way. Again read the story. Why should his Indonesian wife and daughter pull up stakes and join him in exile?
I don't mean to criticise you but if you really are interested Shorty, perhaps you should get your head around the matter before offering up half baked views. Having done that, you may then wish to offer an well thought out view!
