Lawsuit: Adjourned Pellanth Credit & Banking v. Schmuck [2026] FCR 86

[lao19]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Pellanth Credit & Banking (Represented by lao19)
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck (Minecraft Username: schmuck)
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

This action arises from the unauthorized acquisition and retention of approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) belonging to Pellanth Company through the exploitation of a vulnerability within the DemocracyCraft banking system. The funds were transferred through repeated withdrawal transactions and ultimately linked to the Defendant's account.

The conduct at issue caused significant financial harm to Pellanth Company, disrupted business operations, deprived the company of access to its property, and negatively affected a substantial number of individuals who relied upon the company’s continued operation. The Defendant has retained the benefit of funds that were neither earned nor lawfully obtained and has failed to restore those funds despite notice of the issue.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks damages resulting from the disruption caused by the Defendant's actions, and injunctive relief necessary to preserve assets pending final judgment.

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Pellanth Company is a duly registered business operating within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. Plaintiff is represented in this matter by lao19. (consent provided below)
3. Defendant Schmuck, Minecraft username "schmuck," is a player subject to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the authority of this Court.

II. FACTS

1. Pellanth Company maintained substantial funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. On or about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. These transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. Transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. Administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's account.
4. The transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. As a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets.The unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, thus affecting approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. Following discovery of the incident, company representatives conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds. The investigation identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant and administrative banking records further corroborated that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds.
8. Statements made following the incident acknowledged the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) in disputed funds.
9. At no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining the transferred funds.
10. The Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him and despite notice of the dispute, the funds have not been returned in full. The Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
12. Unless restrained by this Court, there exists a risk that the disputed funds may be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – CONVERSION

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Plaintiff possessed a lawful ownership interest in the funds removed from its accounts.
3. Defendant exercised dominion and control over those funds.
4. Such control was inconsistent with Plaintiff's ownership rights.
5. Defendant's actions deprived Plaintiff of possession, use, and enjoyment of its property.
6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages.
7. Defendant is liable for the full value of the converted property.

COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant received a substantial financial benefit.
3. The benefit was obtained through transfers not authorized by Plaintiff.
4. Defendant's retention of those funds would be inequitable and contrary to principles of fairness and justice.

COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant's conduct directly disrupted the ordinary operations of Pellanth Company.
3. The loss of funds impaired the company's ability to conduct business, meet obligations, and provide services.
4. The disruption affected approximately one hundred individuals connected to the company's operations.
5. Plaintiff suffered economic losses and operational damages as a direct result of Defendant's actions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Court:

Compensatory damages for loss of business to PC&B clients in an amount not less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
Consequential damages of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) for worsening conditions caused by this theft.
Punitive damages for the theft in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000)
Any additional relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.

EVIDENCE

Exhibit A – Transaction ledger showing repeated capital withdrawal transactions. P-002s through to P-007s

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Exhibit B – Administrative banking panel identifying the Defendant's account as recipient of the disputed funds. P-002 through P-007s

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Exhibit C – Statements acknowledging the existence of approximately $600,000 in disputed funds. P-001s

Spoiler: P-001

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 28th day of August 2026
(Edited to change minor issue, no relevant data has been edited)

 

[CreeperTD]

@Citrixxxx @lao19 do you still wish to pursue this case? You have 48 hours to respond.

 

[lao19]

@Citrixxxx @lao19 do you still wish to pursue this case? You have 48 hours to respond.

Yes, we still wish to pursue this case.

 

[CreeperTD]

Writ of Summons

@schmuck is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Pellanth Credit & Banking v. Schmuck [2026] FCR 86.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[CreeperTD]

For failing to appear, and thereby disobeying a lawful court order, Defendant schmuck is hereby held in Contempt of Court and shall be fined 5 Penalty Units.

Considering that a ruling against the Defendant would have a significant financial impact on them, the Court will assign a Public Defender.

 

[CreeperTD]

For failing to appear, and thereby disobeying a lawful court order, Defendant schmuck is hereby held in Contempt of Court and shall be fined 5 Penalty Units.

Considering that a ruling against the Defendant would have a significant financial impact on them, the Court will assign a Public Defender.

The court has realized that this was issued a day early. Let it be considered as taking effect at the time of this post.

 

[CreeperTD]

@Pepecuu has been hired by the court as a Public Defender. Please announce your presence to the court.

 

[Pepecuu]

@Pepecuu has been hired by the court as a Public Defender. Please announce your presence to the court.

Good day to all parties, as Judge @CreeperTD has mentioned above, I will be the assigned Public Defender for the Defendant.

 

[CreeperTD]

Good day to all parties, as Judge @CreeperTD has mentioned above, I will be the assigned Public Defender for the Defendant.

Please present an answer to complaint within 72 hours.

 

[Pepecuu]

Please present an answer to complaint within 72 hours.

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Pellanth Credit & Banking
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that Pellanth Credit & Banking (referred to by the Plaintiff as "Pellanth Company") maintained "substantial" funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. The Defence affirms that about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. The Defence also affirms these alleged transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. The Defence affirms that transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. However, the Defence cannot affirm or deny that the administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's in-game account.
4. The Defence affirms that the transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that as a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that the amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets, as the Defence presently lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the Plaintiff's internal finances and operations. Furthermore, the Defence cannot affirm nor deny that unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, which the Plaintiff alleges would have affected approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that company representatives had conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds, as the Defence does not have access, nor have any Plaintiff evidence to suggest that an investigation was conducted by company representatives. However, the Defence denies that the Plaintiff has identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant specifically using independent evidence, and denies that their administrative banking records further corroborates that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds, due to the lack of external auditing or authentication regarding the Plaintiff's internal systems and their data.
8. The Defence affirms that the Defendant made statements acknowledging the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000), however cannot affirm or deny that these funds are disputed.
9. The Defence affirms that to its knowledge, at no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining any funds, but cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was specifically transferred funds.
10. The Defence denies that the knowledge alone of whether the Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him establishes that the Defendant obtained or retained the specific property alleged by the Plaintiff. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. The Defence denies that the Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm due to conduct attributable to the Defendant.
12. The Defence denies that the evidence presently identified by the Plaintiff sufficiently establishes a risk that the disputed funds will be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment so as to justify extraordinary or interim relief.

II. DEFENCES
1. Failure to attribute the account in question to the Defendant
The Plaintiff relies upon their own banking records identifying a destination account as the recipient of the disputed transactions. However, the Plaintiff's own system identifies that account as “unverified.” The Defendant submits that the unverified account designation raises significant material concern regarding the identity of the account holder.

The Defence has no additional evidence to present to the Court, or witnesses to call upon at this time.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 28th day of September 2026.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges Rule 5.5 – Lack of Claim on “COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS". In the RCCA (Part X §3), this is defined as "intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships". The Defence submits that the existence of alleged business disruption does not, by itself, establish any intentionality to cause said business disruption. Therefore, the Plaintiff's third claim merely restates the alleged financial consequences of the transactions underlying the Plaintiff's other claims, and fails to establish any proper legal basis for their claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's third Claim for Relief.

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges Rule 5.5 – Lack of Claim on “COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS". In the RCCA (Part X §3), this is defined as "intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships". The Defence submits that the existence of alleged business disruption does not, by itself, establish any intentionality to cause said business disruption. Therefore, the Plaintiff's third claim merely restates the alleged financial consequences of the transactions underlying the Plaintiff's other claims, and fails to establish any proper legal basis for their claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's third Claim for Relief.

This motion is DENIED, Rule 5.5 specifically states that it can only be called upon “after the end of discovery.”

We shall now enter discovery, which shall last for a period of 5 days. The court reminds both sides that discovery may be ended early upon mutual agreement by both parties

 

[CreeperTD]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OT THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Upon further review of Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint, the Court has discovered multiple deficiencies which must be remedied during the course of discovery for this case to proceed. Whereas Rule 1.9 allows the Court to “ask, request, or demand” a party to present information, the Court demands that the Plaintiff remedy these defects by the end of Discovery on pain of dismissal:

1. The Attorney who has filed the complaint has failed to provide proof of representation. Proof of this must be provided within 24 hours or this action will be dismissed.

2. Fact 3 alleges that multiple (in-game?) firms are associated with the Defendant, however it isn’t explained how the evidence provided connects the two. Is there some technical reason for this connection? The court can’t be expected to read into evidence what isn’t actually stated. Amendments to the Complaint or additional evidence must address this.

3. Fact 2 alleges that the transfers were “abnormal and unauthorized.” How is this so? Again, Plaintiff cannot expect the Court to find connections for them, they must instead argue that the connections exist before the court.

The Court orders this sua sponte without regard to Defense Counsel’s arguments as they stand. No existing deadlines are altered by this order.

So ordered.

 

[lao19]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OT THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Upon further review of Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint, the Court has discovered multiple deficiencies which must be remedied during the course of discovery for this case to proceed. Whereas Rule 1.9 allows the Court to “ask, request, or demand” a party to present information, the Court demands that the Plaintiff remedy these defects by the end of Discovery on pain of dismissal:

1. The Attorney who has filed the complaint has failed to provide proof of representation. Proof of this must be provided within 24 hours or this action will be dismissed.

2. Fact 3 alleges that multiple (in-game?) firms are associated with the Defendant, however it isn’t explained how the evidence provided connects the two. Is there some technical reason for this connection? The court can’t be expected to read into evidence what isn’t actually stated. Amendments to the Complaint or additional evidence must address this.

3. Fact 2 alleges that the transfers were “abnormal and unauthorized.” How is this so? Again, Plaintiff cannot expect the Court to find connections for them, they must instead argue that the connections exist before the court.

The Court orders this sua sponte without regard to Defense Counsel’s arguments as they stand. No existing deadlines are altered by this order.

So ordered.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Your Honour,

1. Proof of representation from current Department of Commerce receiver of Pellanth:

2.
The funds taken out of the corporate accounts were sent directly to the defendant's personal PC&B account before being withdrawn to their in-game account as shown in P-004 to P-007.

3.
The allegedly stolen funds were not actually deposited into the account at any time. The defendant used a vulnerability in the Pellanth website to immediately request funds multiple times from a corporate account, allowing that money to be withdrawed and sending the corporate account into the negatives on pellanth's end. They repeated this until they had taken the amount of $588,000.

 

[CreeperTD]

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Your Honour,

1. Proof of representation from current Department of Commerce receiver of Pellanth:
View attachment 100531

2.
The funds taken out of the corporate accounts were sent directly to the defendant's personal PC&B account before being withdrawn to their in-game account as shown in P-004 to P-007.

3.
The allegedly stolen funds were not actually deposited into the account at any time. The defendant used a vulnerability in the Pellanth website to immediately request funds multiple times from a corporate account, allowing that money to be withdrawed and sending the corporate account into the negatives on pellanth's end. They repeated this until they had taken the amount of $588,000.

The court doesn't find Plaintiff's response to question 2 to be adequate. Again, I ask what evidence do you have that links the corporate accounts to the Defendant directly? Did they create those accounts at the bank? Did they have ownership of those accounts? You have 24 hours.

A reminder that Discovery is ongoing, and all related actions are able to occur at this time.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO END DISCOVERY EARLY

Your Honor, and to the Plaintiff's Counsel,

The Defence does not anticipate making further evidentiary submissions or calling witnesses.

In the interests of procedural efficiency, the Defence hereby proposes ending discovery early, pursuant to Rule 4.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

 

[Citrixxxx]

The court doesn't find Plaintiff's response to question 2 to be adequate. Again, I ask what evidence do you have that links the corporate accounts to the Defendant directly? Did they create those accounts at the bank? Did they have ownership of those accounts? You have 24 hours.

A reminder that Discovery is ongoing, and all related actions are able to occur at this time.

I would like to request an extension due to extenuating circumstances. The law firm that was representing us has disbanded and @lao19 told us to find new representation.

 

[Citrixxxx]

The court doesn't find Plaintiff's response to question 2 to be adequate. Again, I ask what evidence do you have that links the corporate accounts to the Defendant directly? Did they create those accounts at the bank? Did they have ownership of those accounts? You have 24 hours.

A reminder that Discovery is ongoing, and all related actions are able to occur at this time.

I would like to request an extension due to extenuating circumstances. The law firm that was representing us has disbanded.

(sorry accidentally posted this twice)

 

[CreeperTD]

I would like to request an extension due to extenuating circumstances. The law firm that was representing us has disbanded and @lao19 told us to find new representation.

You have 24 hours to find new representation.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

You have 24 hours to find new representation.

Present on Behalf of the Plaintiff, Your honor. Could I get 24 hours to respond to the order to show cause?

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[CreeperTD]

Present on Behalf of the Plaintiff, Your honor. Could I get 24 hours to respond to the order to show cause?

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 100601

Granted.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

The court doesn't find Plaintiff's response to question 2 to be adequate. Again, I ask what evidence do you have that links the corporate accounts to the Defendant directly? Did they create those accounts at the bank? Did they have ownership of those accounts? You have 24 hours.

A reminder that Discovery is ongoing, and all related actions are able to occur at this time.

Case Filing

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. The Defendant was clearly connected to the Company accounts, as they withdrew money from them, as shown In P-004. This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them.
B. Whether or not Defendant had control of company accounts does not matter, as they were able to withdraw money from them, and able to convert that money.
C. Additionally, We submit P-008, P-009, P010, and P-011. P-007 proves that IsrealiDefenseForce was owned by the owner with the username "Schmuck". Then, P-009 and P-010 prove that the "unverified" tag is merely a visual glitch, as both the lawyer, who is able to access the back end, and the literal owner are "unverified". In addition, P-011 proves that the fact that the Defendant was able to access the bank is proof they were verified in their minecraft account, as the screenshot shows the only thing anyone has access too is just a "please verify" screen until you verify. Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be "verified" in order to do so.

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

 

[Pepecuu]

Case Filing

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. The Defendant was clearly connected to the Company accounts, as they withdrew money from them, as shown In P-004. This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them.
B. Whether or not Defendant had control of company accounts does not matter, as they were able to withdraw money from them, and able to convert that money.
C. Additionally, We submit P-008, P-009, P010, and P-011. P-007 proves that IsrealiDefenseForce was owned by the owner with the username "Schmuck". Then, P-009 and P-010 prove that the "unverified" tag is merely a visual glitch, as both the lawyer, who is able to access the back end, and the literal owner are "unverified". In addition, P-011 proves that the fact that the Defendant was able to access the bank is proof they were verified in their minecraft account, as the screenshot shows the only thing anyone has access too is just a "please verify" screen until you verify. Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be "verified" in order to do so.

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100653

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100654

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100655

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100658

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor,
In the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause' (Point A), the Plaintiff asserts that "This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them", with the phrase "This evidence" referring to P-004. However, the Plaintiff's assumptions go beyond what the exhibit itself establishes by asserting that an alleged transaction within the Plaintiff's banking system automatically proves ownership or control of the corporate account by the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to strike the Plaintiff's assertion of P-004 as "linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts", when the exhibit itself does not establish that proposition.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
In Point B, the Plaintiff asserts that P-009 and P-010 "prove that the 'unverified' tag is merely a visual glitch," relying on screenshots of other accounts that show an “Unverified” status alongside active banking activity. However, P-009 and P-010 merely demonstrate that accounts with an “Unverified” designation can have transaction activity recorded in their banking system. Neither exhibit provides a technical explanation for why the designation appears, nor does either tangibly establish that the designation is erroneous or merely cosmetic.

By utilizing this line of argument, the Plaintiff is asking the Court to make an unproven factual inference that the “Unverified” designation is merely a visual glitch, even though the plain existence of banking activity alongside this designation does not, by itself, establish that explanation.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the Plaintiff's speculative characterization of the “Unverified” designation.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
Within Point C of the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause', the Plaintiff makes the conclusion that "Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be 'verified'" (Words emboldened for emphasis), relying on P-011 as the evidence that all accounts need to be verified before transacting.

While P-011 demonstrates that the Plaintiff's website has a verification process, it does not establish that verification was necessarily required to perform the alleged transactions at hand. This is further complicated by P-009 and P-010, which show “Unverified” accounts alongside recorded banking activity, contradicting the Plaintiff's own statements. Therefore, the Plaintiff's conclusion that the Defendant "must" have been verified requires a significant inference between the currently unlinked concepts of the bank's verification procedures and the account attributions within it.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the inferred conclusion the Plaintiff baselessly draws from their statements regarding P-011 in Point C.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor,
In the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause' (Point A), the Plaintiff asserts that "This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them", with the phrase "This evidence" referring to P-004. However, the Plaintiff's assumptions go beyond what the exhibit itself establishes by asserting that an alleged transaction within the Plaintiff's banking system automatically proves ownership or control of the corporate account by the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to strike the Plaintiff's assertion of P-004 as "linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts", when the exhibit itself does not establish that proposition.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
In Point B, the Plaintiff asserts that P-009 and P-010 "prove that the 'unverified' tag is merely a visual glitch," relying on screenshots of other accounts that show an “Unverified” status alongside active banking activity. However, P-009 and P-010 merely demonstrate that accounts with an “Unverified” designation can have transaction activity recorded in their banking system. Neither exhibit provides a technical explanation for why the designation appears, nor does either tangibly establish that the designation is erroneous or merely cosmetic.

By utilizing this line of argument, the Plaintiff is asking the Court to make an unproven factual inference that the “Unverified” designation is merely a visual glitch, even though the plain existence of banking activity alongside this designation does not, by itself, establish that explanation.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the Plaintiff's speculative characterization of the “Unverified” designation.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
Within Point C of the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause', the Plaintiff makes the conclusion that "Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be 'verified'" (Words emboldened for emphasis), relying on P-011 as the evidence that all accounts need to be verified before transacting.

While P-011 demonstrates that the Plaintiff's website has a verification process, it does not establish that verification was necessarily required to perform the alleged transactions at hand. This is further complicated by P-009 and P-010, which show “Unverified” accounts alongside recorded banking activity, contradicting the Plaintiff's own statements. Therefore, the Plaintiff's conclusion that the Defendant "must" have been verified requires a significant inference between the currently unlinked concepts of the bank's verification procedures and the account attributions within it.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the inferred conclusion the Plaintiff baselessly draws from their statements regarding P-011 in Point C.

Case Filing

Answer to Objections
Threshold matter
The Response to the Order to Show Cause is a written submission of argument, filed because the Court demanded it under Rule 1.9. It is not witness testimony and it is not a question put to a witness. The Objections Guide defines "Assumes facts not in evidence" in terms of a question that presumes something unproven. It defines "Speculation" in terms of a witness testifying about things they did not directly observe. Neither describes a filing by counsel.


Rule 6.3.1 allows objections against arguments, but only where the objection is accurate to its description, and it says objections "cannot be used outside of their intended purpose." Neither objection is on the Rule 6.3.2 list of non-witness objections either.


The Court's Order also told the Plaintiff that it "must instead argue that the connections exist before the court." The Defence now asks the Court to strike that very argument. Whether an inference from an exhibit is persuasive goes to weight, which the Court will decide at verdict. It is not a ground for striking.


Answer to Objection 1 – Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

Case Filing

1. The objection attacks a proposition the Plaintiff did not make. Point A says the Defendant was connected to the corporate accounts through the withdrawals recorded in P-004. Point B states expressly that ownership or control of those accounts is immaterial. The Plaintiff does not claim P-004 proves ownership of the corporate accounts. It shows receipt of funds withdrawn from them, which answers the Court's question and is what conversion requires: dominion over the funds, not title to the source account.
2. The underlying facts are in evidence and largely uncontested. The Defence's Answer affirms that the transactions were abnormal, repeated and in rapid succession (¶2). It affirms that the withdrawals originated from firm capital accounts (¶3) and that none were authorised (¶4). On whether administrative records linked the destination to the Defendant's account (¶3), the Defence neither affirmed nor denied. Under Rule 3.2(3), that operates as no contest for verdict and summary judgment purposes.
3. Under Rule 4.6, logs and records are presumed correct unless challenged. The Defence has challenged P-004 only by argument and has stated it has no evidence or witnesses to offer.

Answer to Objection 2 – Speculation (the "visual glitch" inference)

1. The threshold matter applies. This is counsel's argument, not testimony. The quoted statement also appears in Point C of the Response, not Point B as the objection states.
2. The inference is drawn from evidence. P-009 and P-010 show two accounts whose holders are not disputed, the company's owner and the attorney with back-end access. Both carry the same "Unverified" label while actively transacting. The reasonable inference is that the label does not distinguish legitimate holders from illegitimate ones. If the Court prefers not to adopt the word "glitch," the argument still stands on narrower ground: on this record, the label tells the Court nothing about whose account it is.
3. The Defence's own sole defence (Part II.1 of its Answer) asks the Court to infer "significant material concern" about identity from that same label alone, with no evidence of what the label means. The Defence has disclaimed any further evidence or witnesses. An inference resting on two exhibits cannot be less permissible than one resting on none.
4. Attribution does not depend on the label. It rests on P-007, which shows the Defendant as owner of the receiving account. It also rests on the Defence's admission (Answer ¶8) that the Defendant made statements acknowledging approximately $600,000.

Answer to Objection 3 – Speculation (the verification inference)

1. The threshold matter applies.
2. The objection finds a contradiction that does not exist. P-011 shows the site is gated behind a "please verify" screen until a Minecraft account is linked. P-009 and P-010 show accounts of actively transacting, undisputed users also displaying "Unverified." These exhibits are consistent: the label does not track whether the gate was passed. They do not undermine the inference from P-011. They explain why the Defence's reliance on the label is misplaced. The Defence's reading would require the Court to accept that the company's owner and its counsel never completed the same verification.
3. To the extent "must" overstated certainty, the Plaintiff asks the Court to read it as "the reasonable inference on this record." The Defence has offered no evidence of any route to these transactions that bypasses verification.
4. As above, attribution is independently supported by P-004 to P-007 and the Defence's admissions, and does not turn on this point.

The Plaintiff requests that the objection be overruled and that the Court decline to strike.

 

[CreeperTD]

Case Filing

Answer to Objections
Threshold matter
The Response to the Order to Show Cause is a written submission of argument, filed because the Court demanded it under Rule 1.9. It is not witness testimony and it is not a question put to a witness. The Objections Guide defines "Assumes facts not in evidence" in terms of a question that presumes something unproven. It defines "Speculation" in terms of a witness testifying about things they did not directly observe. Neither describes a filing by counsel.


Rule 6.3.1 allows objections against arguments, but only where the objection is accurate to its description, and it says objections "cannot be used outside of their intended purpose." Neither objection is on the Rule 6.3.2 list of non-witness objections either.


The Court's Order also told the Plaintiff that it "must instead argue that the connections exist before the court." The Defence now asks the Court to strike that very argument. Whether an inference from an exhibit is persuasive goes to weight, which the Court will decide at verdict. It is not a ground for striking.


Answer to Objection 1 – Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

1. The objection attacks a proposition the Plaintiff did not make. Point A says the Defendant was connected to the corporate accounts through the withdrawals recorded in P-004. Point B states expressly that ownership or control of those accounts is immaterial. The Plaintiff does not claim P-004 proves ownership of the corporate accounts. It shows receipt of funds withdrawn from them, which answers the Court's question and is what conversion requires: dominion over the funds, not title to the source account.
2. The underlying facts are in evidence and largely uncontested. The Defence's Answer affirms that the transactions were abnormal, repeated and in rapid succession (¶2). It affirms that the withdrawals originated from firm capital accounts (¶3) and that none were authorised (¶4). On whether administrative records linked the destination to the Defendant's account (¶3), the Defence neither affirmed nor denied. Under Rule 3.2(3), that operates as no contest for verdict and summary judgment purposes.
3. Under Rule 4.6, logs and records are presumed correct unless challenged. The Defence has challenged P-004 only by argument and has stated it has no evidence or witnesses to offer.

Answer to Objection 2 – Speculation (the "visual glitch" inference)

1. The threshold matter applies. This is counsel's argument, not testimony. The quoted statement also appears in Point C of the Response, not Point B as the objection states.
2. The inference is drawn from evidence. P-009 and P-010 show two accounts whose holders are not disputed, the company's owner and the attorney with back-end access. Both carry the same "Unverified" label while actively transacting. The reasonable inference is that the label does not distinguish legitimate holders from illegitimate ones. If the Court prefers not to adopt the word "glitch," the argument still stands on narrower ground: on this record, the label tells the Court nothing about whose account it is.
3. The Defence's own sole defence (Part II.1 of its Answer) asks the Court to infer "significant material concern" about identity from that same label alone, with no evidence of what the label means. The Defence has disclaimed any further evidence or witnesses. An inference resting on two exhibits cannot be less permissible than one resting on none.
4. Attribution does not depend on the label. It rests on P-007, which shows the Defendant as owner of the receiving account. It also rests on the Defence's admission (Answer ¶8) that the Defendant made statements acknowledging approximately $600,000.

Answer to Objection 3 – Speculation (the verification inference)

1. The threshold matter applies.
2. The objection finds a contradiction that does not exist. P-011 shows the site is gated behind a "please verify" screen until a Minecraft account is linked. P-009 and P-010 show accounts of actively transacting, undisputed users also displaying "Unverified." These exhibits are consistent: the label does not track whether the gate was passed. They do not undermine the inference from P-011. They explain why the Defence's reliance on the label is misplaced. The Defence's reading would require the Court to accept that the company's owner and its counsel never completed the same verification.
3. To the extent "must" overstated certainty, the Plaintiff asks the Court to read it as "the reasonable inference on this record." The Defence has offered no evidence of any route to these transactions that bypasses verification.
4. As above, attribution is independently supported by P-004 to P-007 and the Defence's admissions, and does not turn on this point.

The Plaintiff requests that the objection be overruled and that the Court decline to strike.

Counselor SplashyAlpaca77 is hereby held in Contempt of Court for significantly editing a court filing without permission from the Presiding Officer. This edit completely changed the arguments made by the Counselor, and this bad faith action shall result in their entire response being struck from the record. Counselor shall pay a fine of 20 Penalty Units and serve 5 minutes in jail.

Let this serve as a warning to all that edits cannot be made at will except for small corrections, and that all edits must always be declared to the Presiding Officer in all the courts of Redmont.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Counselor SplashyAlpaca77 is hereby held in Contempt of Court for significantly editing a court filing without permission from the Presiding Officer. This edit completely changed the arguments made by the Counselor, and this bad faith action shall result in their entire response being struck from the record. Counselor shall pay a fine of 20 Penalty Units and serve 5 minutes in jail.

Let this serve as a warning to all that edits cannot be made at will except for small corrections, and that all edits must always be declared to the Presiding Officer in all the courts of Redmont.

Apologies, Your Honor.
I had accidently pressed control enter whilst trying to press shift enter. May I still respond to the objection?

 

[CreeperTD]

Apologies, Your Honor.
I had accidently pressed control enter whilst trying to press shift enter. May I still respond to the objection?

No. As stated, the edits were significant, changing the arguments completely from a version that was clearly made as a full response. This attempt to deceive the court must be punished.

Spoiler: Edit by Plaintiff

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor,
In the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause' (Point A), the Plaintiff asserts that "This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them", with the phrase "This evidence" referring to P-004. However, the Plaintiff's assumptions go beyond what the exhibit itself establishes by asserting that an alleged transaction within the Plaintiff's banking system automatically proves ownership or control of the corporate account by the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to strike the Plaintiff's assertion of P-004 as "linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts", when the exhibit itself does not establish that proposition.

Objection overruled. The Plaintiff has stated these as facts to the court as a response to an Order to Show Cause. As will be seen below, the Defense shall have the opportunity to dispute these facts during the course of proceedings.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
In Point B, the Plaintiff asserts that P-009 and P-010 "prove that the 'unverified' tag is merely a visual glitch," relying on screenshots of other accounts that show an “Unverified” status alongside active banking activity. However, P-009 and P-010 merely demonstrate that accounts with an “Unverified” designation can have transaction activity recorded in their banking system. Neither exhibit provides a technical explanation for why the designation appears, nor does either tangibly establish that the designation is erroneous or merely cosmetic.

By utilizing this line of argument, the Plaintiff is asking the Court to make an unproven factual inference that the “Unverified” designation is merely a visual glitch, even though the plain existence of banking activity alongside this designation does not, by itself, establish that explanation.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the Plaintiff's speculative characterization of the “Unverified” designation.

Objection sustained in part. While the response is adequate for the purposes of answering the court's questions, it is reasonable to dispute that this is a fact.

As such, the Court orders that the additional facts established throughout their response to the Court's Order be added to the Plaintiff's set of facts through a Motion to Amend in order to allow the Defense Counsel to dispute them officially. Plaintiff shall be given 24 hours to do so.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
Within Point C of the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause', the Plaintiff makes the conclusion that "Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be 'verified'" (Words emboldened for emphasis), relying on P-011 as the evidence that all accounts need to be verified before transacting.

While P-011 demonstrates that the Plaintiff's website has a verification process, it does not establish that verification was necessarily required to perform the alleged transactions at hand. This is further complicated by P-009 and P-010, which show “Unverified” accounts alongside recorded banking activity, contradicting the Plaintiff's own statements. Therefore, the Plaintiff's conclusion that the Defendant "must" have been verified requires a significant inference between the currently unlinked concepts of the bank's verification procedures and the account attributions within it.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the inferred conclusion the Plaintiff baselessly draws from their statements regarding P-011 in Point C.

Objection overruled. This fact will be able to be disputed by the Defendant once the Plaintiff complies with the court's above order.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Case Filing

Motion To Amend
Pursuant to Your Honor's response to objections and Court Rule 3.3, I would like permission to modify the complaint to add facts and evidence supporting them.
FACTS:
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).
These facts are supplemental, and do not alter the claims or prayer for relief.
Evidence:
P-008,P-009,P-010, and P-011 are all added to prove the above facts.

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100653

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100654

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100655

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100658

 

[CreeperTD]

Case Filing

Motion To Amend
Pursuant to Your Honor's response to objections and Court Rule 3.3, I would like permission to modify the complaint to add facts and evidence supporting them.
FACTS:
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).
These facts are supplemental, and do not alter the claims or prayer for relief.
Evidence:
P-008,P-009,P-010, and P-011 are all added to prove the above facts.

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100653

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100654

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100655

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100658

Granted, however the files are not directly uploaded to this post. Given that Plaintiff's counsel has changed, the court grants permission for current counsel to repost the complaint in this thread with these requested changes. Also, please stop formatting all posts as a complaint using case tags, look at the Templates page to see how to properly format motions.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Pellanth Credit & Banking (Represented by lao19)
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck (Minecraft Username: schmuck)
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

This action arises from the unauthorized acquisition and retention of approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) belonging to Pellanth Company through the exploitation of a vulnerability within the DemocracyCraft banking system. The funds were transferred through repeated withdrawal transactions and ultimately linked to the Defendant's account.

The conduct at issue caused significant financial harm to Pellanth Company, disrupted business operations, deprived the company of access to its property, and negatively affected a substantial number of individuals who relied upon the company’s continued operation. The Defendant has retained the benefit of funds that were neither earned nor lawfully obtained and has failed to restore those funds despite notice of the issue.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks damages resulting from the disruption caused by the Defendant's actions, and injunctive relief necessary to preserve assets pending final judgment.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Pellanth Company is a duly registered business operating within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. Plaintiff is represented in this matter by lao19. (consent provided below)
3. Defendant Schmuck, Minecraft username "schmuck," is a player subject to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the authority of this Court.

II. FACTS

1. Pellanth Company maintained substantial funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. On or about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. These transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. Transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. Administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's account.
4. The transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. As a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets.The unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, thus affecting approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. Following discovery of the incident, company representatives conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds. The investigation identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant and administrative banking records further corroborated that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds.
8. Statements made following the incident acknowledged the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) in disputed funds.
9. At no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining the transferred funds.
10. The Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him and despite notice of the dispute, the funds have not been returned in full. The Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
12. Unless restrained by this Court, there exists a risk that the disputed funds may be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment.
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).
16. "Businesses" registered under the bank's accounts as businesses are not required to be registered in the plugin.
17. The Defendant was the sole owner of IsrealiDefenseForces in the portal(P-011).
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – CONVERSION

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Plaintiff possessed a lawful ownership interest in the funds removed from its accounts.
3. Defendant exercised dominion and control over those funds.
4. Such control was inconsistent with Plaintiff's ownership rights.
5. Defendant's actions deprived Plaintiff of possession, use, and enjoyment of its property.
6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages.
7. Defendant is liable for the full value of the converted property.

COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant received a substantial financial benefit.
3. The benefit was obtained through transfers not authorized by Plaintiff.
4. Defendant's retention of those funds would be inequitable and contrary to principles of fairness and justice.

COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant's conduct directly disrupted the ordinary operations of Pellanth Company.
3. The loss of funds impaired the company's ability to conduct business, meet obligations, and provide services.
4. The disruption affected approximately one hundred individuals connected to the company's operations.
5. Plaintiff suffered economic losses and operational damages as a direct result of Defendant's actions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Court:

Compensatory damages for loss of business to PC&B clients in an amount not less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
Consequential damages of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) for worsening conditions caused by this theft.
Punitive damages for the theft in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000)
Any additional relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.

EVIDENCE

Exhibit A – Transaction ledger showing repeated capital withdrawal transactions. P-002s through to P-007s

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Exhibit B – Administrative banking panel identifying the Defendant's account as recipient of the disputed funds. P-002 through P-007s

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Exhibit C – Statements acknowledging the existence of approximately $600,000 in disputed funds. P-001s

Spoiler: P-001

Additional evidence, added here:

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 1st Day of October 2026.
edited this 4th day of October 2026. NOTE: new evidence presented as P-012 due to numbering error.

 

[Pepecuu]

Case Filing

Motion To Amend
Pursuant to Your Honor's response to objections and Court Rule 3.3, I would like permission to modify the complaint to add facts and evidence supporting them.
FACTS:
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).
These facts are supplemental, and do not alter the claims or prayer for relief.
Evidence:
P-008,P-009,P-010, and P-011 are all added to prove the above facts.

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100653

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100654

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100655

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100658

Your Honor,

As these are additional facts added after the Defence's Answer to Complaint, the Defence would like to request to amend its own Answer to Complaint to reflect these new filings.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

As these are additional facts added after the Defence's Answer to Complaint, the Defence would like to request to amend its own Answer to Complaint to reflect these new filings.

Make a motion to amend.

 

[Pepecuu]

Make a motion to amend.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Your Honor,

Given that the Plaintiff has made material changes to their case filing regarding the facts that they allege, the Defence respectfully requests to amend our Answer to Complaint to appropriately affirm or dispute the Plaintiff's new facts.

The proposed amendments shall be as follows.
1. The following sentences shall be appended under "I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT", Point 12.

Spoiler: Additions I

13. The Defence denies that the in-game firm "IsrealiDefenseForces" was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck. This is shown by a query the Defence ran to the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin, attached below. (D-001)
14. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch. Despite the evidence within P-009 and P-010, the Defence asserts that the possibility of a small sample size of three (including the alleged account of the Defendant) unverified accounts does not immediately rule out any technical limitations of the Plaintiff's banking system. Additionally, the Defence lacks the permissions required to verify that "all accounts have it" (as alleged by the Plaintiff's updated Case Filing).
15. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was unable to access the bank and enter inputs unless their account is verified, as the Defence does not have access to test the Plaintiff's banking systems as a potential user in that scenario.

2. The following sentence shall be appended under the contents of "II. DEFENCES".

Spoiler: Additions II

III. EVIDENCES

Spoiler: D-001

3. The following sentence shall be amended under the newly added "III. EVIDENCES" in Point 2. (The words highlighted in Yellow are to be removed) -> Yellow was used due to the standard Red colour's lack of contrast between the background colour of the spoiler and the text.

Spoiler: Additions III

The Defence has no additional evidence to present to the Court, or witnesses to call upon at this time.

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Your Honor,

Given that the Plaintiff has made material changes to their case filing regarding the facts that they allege, the Defence respectfully requests to amend our Answer to Complaint to appropriately affirm or dispute the Plaintiff's new facts.

The motion to amend should include the specific amendments being made in detail. Please edit this motion to do so.

 

[Pepecuu]

The motion to amend should include the specific amendments being made in detail. Please edit this motion to do so.

The Defence's motion to amend has been edited to add specificity to its proposed amendments. Thank you for your understanding, Your Honor.

 

[CreeperTD]

The Defence's motion to amend has been edited to add specificity to its proposed amendments. Thank you for your understanding, Your Honor.

The edited motion is granted. Please make the changes at this time.

 

[CreeperTD]

Discovery is now over. Seeing as no witnesses have been called by either side, this Court shall proceed directly to Closing Statements. Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statement.

For the purposes of filing a Motion to Dismiss, any that may only be filed before Opening Statements may be filed at this time.

 

[Pepecuu]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Pellanth Credit & Banking (Represented by lao19)
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck (Minecraft Username: schmuck)
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Pellanth Company is a duly registered business operating within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. Plaintiff is represented in this matter by lao19. (consent provided below)
3. Defendant Schmuck, Minecraft username "schmuck," is a player subject to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the authority of this Court.

II. FACTS

1. Pellanth Company maintained substantial funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. On or about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. These transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. Transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. Administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's account.
4. The transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. As a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets.The unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, thus affecting approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. Following discovery of the incident, company representatives conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds. The investigation identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant and administrative banking records further corroborated that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds.
8. Statements made following the incident acknowledged the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) in disputed funds.
9. At no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining the transferred funds.
10. The Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him and despite notice of the dispute, the funds have not been returned in full. The Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
12. Unless restrained by this Court, there exists a risk that the disputed funds may be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment.
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – CONVERSION

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Plaintiff possessed a lawful ownership interest in the funds removed from its accounts.
3. Defendant exercised dominion and control over those funds.
4. Such control was inconsistent with Plaintiff's ownership rights.
5. Defendant's actions deprived Plaintiff of possession, use, and enjoyment of its property.
6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages.
7. Defendant is liable for the full value of the converted property.

COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant received a substantial financial benefit.
3. The benefit was obtained through transfers not authorized by Plaintiff.
4. Defendant's retention of those funds would be inequitable and contrary to principles of fairness and justice.

COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant's conduct directly disrupted the ordinary operations of Pellanth Company.
3. The loss of funds impaired the company's ability to conduct business, meet obligations, and provide services.
4. The disruption affected approximately one hundred individuals connected to the company's operations.
5. Plaintiff suffered economic losses and operational damages as a direct result of Defendant's actions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Court:

Compensatory damages for loss of business to PC&B clients in an amount not less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
Consequential damages of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) for worsening conditions caused by this theft.
Punitive damages for the theft in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000)
Any additional relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.

EVIDENCE

Exhibit A – Transaction ledger showing repeated capital withdrawal transactions. P-002s through to P-007s

Spoiler: P-002

View attachment 100763

Spoiler: P-003

View attachment 100764

Exhibit B – Administrative banking panel identifying the Defendant's account as recipient of the disputed funds. P-002 through P-007s

Spoiler: P-004

View attachment 100765

Spoiler: P-005

View attachment 100766

Spoiler: P-006

View attachment 100767

Spoiler: P-007

View attachment 100768

Exhibit C – Statements acknowledging the existence of approximately $600,000 in disputed funds. P-001s

Spoiler: P-001

View attachment 100769

Additional evidence, added here:

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100770

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100771

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100772

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100773

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 1st Day of October 2026.

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Pellanth Credit & Banking
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that Pellanth Credit & Banking (referred to by the Plaintiff as "Pellanth Company") maintained "substantial" funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. The Defence affirms that about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. The Defence also affirms these alleged transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. The Defence affirms that transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. However, the Defence cannot affirm or deny that the administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's in-game account.
4. The Defence affirms that the transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that as a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that the amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets, as the Defence presently lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the Plaintiff's internal finances and operations. Furthermore, the Defence cannot affirm nor deny that unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, which the Plaintiff alleges would have affected approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that company representatives had conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds, as the Defence does not have access, nor have any Plaintiff evidence to suggest that an investigation was conducted by company representatives. However, the Defence denies that the Plaintiff has identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant specifically using independent evidence, and denies that their administrative banking records further corroborates that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds, due to the lack of external auditing or authentication regarding the Plaintiff's internal systems and their data.
8. The Defence affirms that the Defendant made statements acknowledging the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000), however cannot affirm or deny that these funds are disputed.
9. The Defence affirms that to its knowledge, at no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining any funds, but cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was specifically transferred funds.
10. The Defence denies that the knowledge alone of whether the Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him establishes that the Defendant obtained or retained the specific property alleged by the Plaintiff. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. The Defence denies that the Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm due to conduct attributable to the Defendant.
12. The Defence denies that the evidence presently identified by the Plaintiff sufficiently establishes a risk that the disputed funds will be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment so as to justify extraordinary or interim relief.
13. The Defence denies that the in-game firm "IsrealiDefenseForces" was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck. This is shown by a query the Defence ran to the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin, attached below. (D-001)
14. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch. Despite the evidence within P-009 and P-010, the Defence asserts that the possibility of a small sample size of three (including the alleged account of the Defendant) unverified accounts does not immediately rule out any technical limitations of the Plaintiff's banking system. Additionally, the Defence lacks the permissions required to verify that "all accounts have it" (as alleged by the Plaintiff's updated Case Filing).
15. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was unable to access the bank and enter inputs unless their account is verified, as the Defence does not have access to test the Plaintiff's banking systems as a potential user in that scenario.

II. DEFENCES
1. Failure to attribute the account in question to the Defendant
The Plaintiff relies upon their own banking records identifying a destination account as the recipient of the disputed transactions. However, the Plaintiff's own system identifies that account as “unverified.” The Defendant submits that the unverified account designation raises significant material concern regarding the identity of the account holder.

III. EVIDENCES

Spoiler: D-001

The Defence has no witnesses to call upon at this time.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 4th day of October 2026.

 

[Pepecuu]

Discovery is now over. Seeing as no witnesses have been called by either side, this Court shall proceed directly to Closing Statements. Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statement.

For the purposes of filing a Motion to Dismiss, any that may only be filed before Opening Statements may be filed at this time.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor,
Despite this motion contradicting the Defence's own earlier Motion to end discovery early, the Defence believes the change in the Plaintiff's counsel did not allow them to utilize the full 5 days of discovery effectively. Should the motion be acceptable, the Defence proposes an extension of 24 hours to ensure fairness to all parties in representing their arguments, and to avoid any unnecessary appeals on procedural errors.

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor,
Despite this motion contradicting the Defence's own earlier Motion to end discovery early, the Defence believes the change in the Plaintiff's counsel did not allow them to utilize the full 5 days of discovery effectively. Should the motion be acceptable, the Defence proposes an extension of 24 hours to ensure fairness to all parties in representing their arguments, and to avoid any unnecessary appeals on procedural errors.

Does Plaintiff wish to extend discovery @SplashyAlpaca77?

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Does Plaintiff wish to extend discovery @SplashyAlpaca77?

Yes, Your Honor.

 

[CreeperTD]

Discovery is extended by 24 hours from this message.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honor,
The Defence respectfully submits amendments to their Answer to Complaint, following the discovery of new evidence pertaining to this case.

The proposed amendments are as follows:
1. The following sentences shall be amended in "II. DEFENCES".

Spoiler: Additions

2. Failure to justify tangible harm alleged
Despite the Plaintiff asserting that the Defendant controls specific firms, subsequent queries to the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin show otherwise, where these firms do not even exist in the first place (see D-002, D-003, and D-004). In all cases, the alleged firms shown within D-001 to D-004 are not found within the in-game Business Plugin, casting significant doubt on how the Defendant would have access alleged funds from these firms in the first place.

2. The following statements shall be appended under the contents of "III. EVIDENCES".

Spoiler: Additions II

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND
Your Honor,
The Plaintiff respectfully requests amendments to their Complaint, in light of the fact that I did not originally file this complaint and feel the need for additional clarification and evidence.
The proposed amendments are to the FACTS and EVIDENCE section:

Spoiler: Additions

16. "Businesses" registered under the bank's accounts as businesses are not required to be registered in the plugin.
17. The Defendant was the sole owner of IsrealiDefenseForces in the portal(P-011).

Spoiler: Evidence

Spoiler: P-011

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honor,
The Defence respectfully submits amendments to their Answer to Complaint, following the discovery of new evidence pertaining to this case.

The proposed amendments are as follows:
1. The following sentences shall be amended in "II. DEFENCES".

Spoiler: Additions

2. Failure to justify tangible harm alleged
Despite the Plaintiff asserting that the Defendant controls specific firms, subsequent queries to the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin show otherwise, where these firms do not even exist in the first place (see D-002, D-003, and D-004). In all cases, the alleged firms shown within D-001 to D-004 are not found within the in-game Business Plugin, casting significant doubt on how the Defendant would have access alleged funds from these firms in the first place.

2. The following statements shall be appended under the contents of "III. EVIDENCES".

Spoiler: Additions II

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Granted.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND
Your Honor,
The Plaintiff respectfully requests amendments to their Complaint, in light of the fact that I did not originally file this complaint and feel the need for additional clarification and evidence.
The proposed amendments are to the FACTS and EVIDENCE section:

Spoiler: Additions

16. "Businesses" registered under the bank's accounts as businesses are not required to be registered in the plugin.
17. The Defendant was the sole owner of IsrealiDefenseForces in the portal(P-011).

Spoiler: Evidence

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 101172

Granted. The Defense will have 72 hours to amend their Answer as a result, as required by Rule 3.7. This will not affect the time at which Discovery shall end.

 

[Pepecuu]

Granted.

Granted. The Defense will have 72 hours to amend their Answer as a result, as required by Rule 3.7. This will not affect the time at which Discovery shall end.

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Pellanth Credit & Banking
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that Pellanth Credit & Banking (referred to by the Plaintiff as "Pellanth Company") maintained "substantial" funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. The Defence affirms that about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. The Defence also affirms these alleged transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. The Defence affirms that transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. However, the Defence cannot affirm or deny that the administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's in-game account.
4. The Defence affirms that the transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that as a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that the amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets, as the Defence presently lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the Plaintiff's internal finances and operations. Furthermore, the Defence cannot affirm nor deny that unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, which the Plaintiff alleges would have affected approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that company representatives had conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds, as the Defence does not have access, nor have any Plaintiff evidence to suggest that an investigation was conducted by company representatives. However, the Defence denies that the Plaintiff has identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant specifically using independent evidence, and denies that their administrative banking records further corroborates that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds, due to the lack of external auditing or authentication regarding the Plaintiff's internal systems and their data.
8. The Defence affirms that the Defendant made statements acknowledging the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000), however cannot affirm or deny that these funds are disputed.
9. The Defence affirms that to its knowledge, at no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining any funds, but cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was specifically transferred funds.
10. The Defence denies that the knowledge alone of whether the Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him establishes that the Defendant obtained or retained the specific property alleged by the Plaintiff. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. The Defence denies that the Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm due to conduct attributable to the Defendant.
12. The Defence denies that the evidence presently identified by the Plaintiff sufficiently establishes a risk that the disputed funds will be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment so as to justify extraordinary or interim relief.
13. The Defence denies that the in-game firm "IsrealiDefenseForces" was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck. This is shown by a query the Defence ran to the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin, attached below. (D-001)
14. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch. Despite the evidence within P-009 and P-010, the Defence asserts that the possibility of a small sample size of three (including the alleged account of the Defendant) unverified accounts does not immediately rule out any technical limitations of the Plaintiff's banking system. Additionally, the Defence lacks the permissions required to verify that "all accounts have it" (as alleged by the Plaintiff's updated Case Filing).
15. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was unable to access the bank and enter inputs unless their account is verified, as the Defence does not have access to test the Plaintiff's banking systems as a potential user in that scenario.
16. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that "Businesses" registered under the bank's accounts as businesses are not required to be registered in the plugin, as the Defence does not have access to test the Plaintiff's banking systems as a potential user in that scenario.
17. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was the sole owner of IsrealiDefenseForces in the portal, as the Defence does not have access to verify the data within the Plaintiff's banking systems.

II. DEFENCES
1. Failure to attribute the account in question to the Defendant
The Plaintiff relies upon their own banking records identifying a destination account as the recipient of the disputed transactions. However, the Plaintiff's own system identifies that account as “unverified.” The Defendant submits that the unverified account designation raises significant material concern regarding the identity of the account holder.
2. Failure to justify tangible harm alleged
Despite the Plaintiff asserting that the Defendant controls specific firms, subsequent queries to the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin show otherwise, where these firms do not even exist in the first place (see D-002, D-003, and D-004). In all cases, the alleged firms shown within D-001 to D-004 are not found within the in-game Business Plugin, casting significant doubt on how the Defendant would have access alleged funds from these firms in the first place.

III. EVIDENCES

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

The Defence has no witnesses to call upon at this time.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 5th day of October 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Seeing as no witnesses have been called, we shall proceed straight to Closing Statements. Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statement.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the whole complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges Rule 5.5 – Lack of Claim on ALL counts in the case filing.

In the RCCA (Part VII §7), "COUNT I – CONVERSION" is defined as "wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; ". The Defence submits that its evidence provided (D-001 to D-004) shows that the firms identified by the Plaintiff cannot be found within the in-game Plugin, which thus causes substantial doubt as to whether these firms existed at all and, consequently, whether the Defendant could have accessed or appropriated the alleged funds from them as claimed.

In the RCCA (Part X §1), "COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT" is defined as "obtains and retains a benefit at another’s expense; and there is no legal justification for retaining the benefit." The Defence submits that the lack of Plaintiff evidence to address possible methods of appropriating the alleged funds significantly dismisses their claim that the Defendant could have obtained and retained a benefit at the Plaintiff’s expense.

In the RCCA (Part X §3), "COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS" is defined as "intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships". The Defence submits that the existence of alleged business disruption does not, by itself, establish any intentionality to cause said business disruption. Therefore, the Plaintiff's third claim merely restates the alleged financial consequences of the transactions underlying the Plaintiff's other claims, and fails to establish any proper legal basis for their claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, or failing that, dismiss specific claims based on the merits of the arguments provided above.

 

[CreeperTD]

Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the above motion.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Your Honor,

1. On conversion. As Fact 16 and 17, supported by P-012 prove, the defendant was the sole owner and accessor of Isrealidefenseforces, which did not have to be an in-game company in order to access the funds illegally
2. The defense has not contested, with any evidence or testimony, that these acts did not take place. Indeed, the Defense affirmed that these acts occurred in their response to fact 2. Now, the Defense appears to be angling that there is no evidence that the Defandant committed these actions, but that is a dispute of the case and will be determined in the verdict.
3. The Plaintiff defines “intentionally” as in they “intentionally” did the actions. In this case, the defendant clearly intentioned to do so, and thus this count should stand. This is supported by Chief Justice Smallfries’ decision In emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24 , where the justice argued that if you do cause damage, you should be liable for it, regardless of harms alleged.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the whole complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges Rule 5.5 – Lack of Claim on ALL counts in the case filing.

In the RCCA (Part VII §7), "COUNT I – CONVERSION" is defined as "wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; ". The Defence submits that its evidence provided (D-001 to D-004) shows that the firms identified by the Plaintiff cannot be found within the in-game Plugin, which thus causes substantial doubt as to whether these firms existed at all and, consequently, whether the Defendant could have accessed or appropriated the alleged funds from them as claimed.

In the RCCA (Part X §1), "COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT" is defined as "obtains and retains a benefit at another’s expense; and there is no legal justification for retaining the benefit." The Defence submits that the lack of Plaintiff evidence to address possible methods of appropriating the alleged funds significantly dismisses their claim that the Defendant could have obtained and retained a benefit at the Plaintiff’s expense.

In the RCCA (Part X §3), "COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS" is defined as "intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships". The Defence submits that the existence of alleged business disruption does not, by itself, establish any intentionality to cause said business disruption. Therefore, the Plaintiff's third claim merely restates the alleged financial consequences of the transactions underlying the Plaintiff's other claims, and fails to establish any proper legal basis for their claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, or failing that, dismiss specific claims based on the merits of the arguments provided above.

 

[CreeperTD]

While the court considers the Motion to Dismiss, the deadline for Closing Statements is tolled.

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that the whole complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges Rule 5.5 – Lack of Claim on ALL counts in the case filing.

In the RCCA (Part VII §7), "COUNT I – CONVERSION" is defined as "wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; ". The Defence submits that its evidence provided (D-001 to D-004) shows that the firms identified by the Plaintiff cannot be found within the in-game Plugin, which thus causes substantial doubt as to whether these firms existed at all and, consequently, whether the Defendant could have accessed or appropriated the alleged funds from them as claimed.

In the RCCA (Part X §1), "COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT" is defined as "obtains and retains a benefit at another’s expense; and there is no legal justification for retaining the benefit." The Defence submits that the lack of Plaintiff evidence to address possible methods of appropriating the alleged funds significantly dismisses their claim that the Defendant could have obtained and retained a benefit at the Plaintiff’s expense.

In the RCCA (Part X §3), "COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS" is defined as "intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships". The Defence submits that the existence of alleged business disruption does not, by itself, establish any intentionality to cause said business disruption. Therefore, the Plaintiff's third claim merely restates the alleged financial consequences of the transactions underlying the Plaintiff's other claims, and fails to establish any proper legal basis for their claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, or failing that, dismiss specific claims based on the merits of the arguments provided above.

Motion denied. Given that the case is so close to reaching a verdict due to a lack of witnesses being called, the Court wishes to have Closing Statements be made before deciding the case.

Deadline is untolled. Given the time at which the deadline was tolled by the Court, that means Plaintiff has approximately 42 hours to deliver their Closing Statement from this post.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF

Your Honour,

Discovery is closed. No witnesses were called by either side. The record is documentary: the Plaintiff's exhibits P-001 to P-012, the Defence's pleadings, and the Defence's own admissions. On that record, the Plaintiff asks the Court to find for it on all three counts.

I. THE FACTS

1. On This, the Defence "cannot affirm or deny." Under Rule 3.2(3), a response of that kind operates as no contest for verdict purposes.
2. In its Answer, the Defence affirmed that on or about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions was recorded, "repeatedly and in rapid succession" (Answer ¶2).
3. The Defence affirmed that the withdrawals originated from firm capital accounts (¶3).
4. The Defence affirmed that the transactions were not authorized by Pellanth and were not made under any contract, loan, employment or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth and the Defendant (¶4).
5. On This, the Defence "cannot affirm or deny." Under Rule 3.2(3), a response of that kind operates as no contest for verdict purposes.
6. On This, the Defence "cannot affirm or deny." Under Rule 3.2(3), a response of that kind operates as no contest for verdict purposes.
7. On This, the Defence "cannot affirm or deny." Under Rule 3.2(3), a response of that kind operates as no contest for verdict purposes. The defense Denies it was the Defendant, but that will be addressed later
8. The Defence affirmed that the Defendant made statements acknowledging approximately $600,000 (¶8).
9. The Defence affirmed, to its knowledge, that Pellanth never consented to the Defendant obtaining or retaining any funds (¶9).
10. While the knowledge may not have been enough, the knowledge and the action combine to be enough. In addition, the the Defence "cannot affirm or deny." that the Defendant Continues to profit from the money stolen, Under Rule 3.2(3), a response of that kind operates as no contest for verdict purposes.
11. The Defendant Denies, but offers no evidence or proof that the loss did not occur.
12. What the Defendant could do with the money is irrelevant.
13. As stated in the Plaintiff’s 16, uncontested, businesses do not have to be registered in-game.
14. the Defence "cannot affirm or deny." Under Rule 3.2(3), a response of that kind operates as no contest for verdict purposes.
15. the Defence "cannot affirm or deny." Under Rule 3.2(3), a response of that kind operates as no contest for verdict purposes.
16. the Defence "cannot affirm or deny." Under Rule 3.2(3), a response of that kind operates as no contest for verdict purposes.
17. the Defence "cannot affirm or deny." Under Rule 3.2(3), a response of that kind operates as no contest for verdict purposes.

What remains is one question: whether the receiving account is the Defendant's.

II. Defenses

The defendant has two main defenses in this case

1. On “Failure to attribute the account in question to the Defendant”. The Plaintiff’s response is threefold:
   1. It's a visual glitch. That the “unverified” tag is merely a visual glitch, as proven by P-009 and P-010, as the owner and a legitimate user both have the same tag.
   2. Verification is required.That any user is required to confirm their account in order to access the bank, as proven by P-011, and by fact 15, uncontested.
   3. Other evidence proves. P-008 Clearly shows that the minecraft username “schmuck”, the defendant, is the receiver and withdrawer of the funds.
2. On “Failure to justify tangible harm alleged”.
   1. The argument targets a claim the Plaintiff did not make. The Plaintiff has never rested its case on the Defendant controlling the firms in the Business Plugin. In its Response to the Order to Show Cause, the Plaintiff stated that ownership or control of the source accounts does not matter. Conversion turns on dominion over the funds, not title to the account they came from. Whether the firms in D-001 to D-004 exist therefore does not decide any element of any count.
   2. The Business Plugin is not the system at issue. This case concerns capital accounts inside the Plaintiff's banking system. As pleaded in Fact 16, businesses registered under the bank's accounts are not required to be registered in the Business Plugin. A query of the Business Plugin therefore does not test whether accounts in the bank exist. It queries a different system and answers a different question.
   3. The Defence has already admitted what its exhibits now appear to deny. In its Answer (¶3), the Defence affirmed that the withdrawals originated from "firm capital accounts." It cannot affirm that the withdrawals came from those accounts and also argue that the accounts do not exist. Its pleading and its exhibits cannot both be true. The Plaintiff relies on the admission, which stands unamended on this point.
   4. The queries are dated long after the events. The transactions occurred on or about June 23, 2026. A firm absent from the plugin in October says nothing about whether it was registered, renamed, dissolved or deleted in the more than three months since. The Defence has offered no evidence about the plugin's state in June, and no witness to explain the plugin's behaviour.
   5. The harm does not depend on the firms' status. The harm in this case is that roughly $588,000 left the Plaintiff's capital accounts without authorization. The Defence admits the transactions were unauthorized (¶4), and the Defendant acknowledged holding approximately $600,000 (¶8). That is a concrete loss of money. It exists whether or not any firm named in the Defence's exhibits is registered in the plugin.
   6. Even on its own terms, the argument helps the Plaintiff. If the firms did not exist in the plugin, that does not explain how the Plaintiff's capital accounts were drained, or why the funds landed in the Defendant's personal PC&B account (P-004 to P-007). The Defence offers no alternative explanation for either. An exhibit that raises a question without answering it is not evidence of a defence.

III. COUNT I: CONVERSION

First, Pellanth owned the funds in its capital accounts. The Defence admits the withdrawals came from those accounts and were unauthorized.
According to the RCCA VI.7,

1. The Defendant exercised dominion and control over the funds. The funds went to the Defendant's personal PC&B account and were then withdrawn to the in-game balance (P-004 to P-007).
2. That control was inconsistent with Pellanth's ownership and deprived Pellanth of its property. Conversion concerns dominion over the funds, not title to the source account, so whether the Defendant controlled the corporate accounts is immaterial.
3. (i)The funds were obtained by repeatedly requesting withdrawals against a corporate account until it went negative on Pellanth's side. The Defendant knew or should have known the money was not theirs.

IV. COUNT II: UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. The Defendant received roughly $588,000 and has not returned it in full.
2. The transfers were unauthorized, and no contract or other lawful basis exists for them.

V. COUNT III: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS

A.The defendant Intentionally took the money, using an exploit, from Pellanth.

B.The defendant used an exploit to do these Interferences.

C.The interferences caused roughly 600k in losses, and affected PC&B’s ability to serve their clients


VI. RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff requests judgment on Counts I and II for the value of the converted funds, approximately $588,000, as "additional relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable" under the Prayer for Relief.
2. The Plaintiff requests the damages pleaded in the Prayer for Relief:
   1. Consequential damages of $150,000;
   2. Punitive damages of $75,000, given the deliberate and repeated nature of the conduct.(for conversion,unjust enrichment, and Tortious Interference with Business Relations)
3. The Plaintiff requests costs and any further relief the Court finds appropriate, including the standard 30% lawyer fees, as is the expected amount.

VII. CONCLUSION

Your Honour, the record is documentary and largely uncontested: the Defence admits that unauthorized withdrawals were made from Pellanth’s firm capital accounts on or about June 23, 2026, that Pellanth never consented, and that the Defendant acknowledged holding approximately $600,000, and it “cannot affirm or deny” the remaining facts, which under Rule 3.2(3) operates as no contest. The only open question, whether the receiving account is the Defendant’s, is answered by P-008, which identifies the Minecraft username “schmuck” as the receiver and withdrawer, by P-009 to P-011 showing the “unverified” tag is a visual glitch and that verification is required to access the bank, and by P-004 to P-007 tracing the funds to the Defendant’s personal PC&B account. The Defence’s challenge to harm targets a claim the Plaintiff never made, since conversion turns on dominion over the funds rather than title to the source accounts, and the Defence’s plugin queries, run months after the events, say nothing about June. The Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to find for it on Counts I, II, and III, and to award approximately $588,000 in converted funds, $150,000 in consequential damages, $75,000 in punitive damages, and costs, attorney’s fees, and any further relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 6th day of October 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Defense has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.

 

[Pepecuu]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENTS OF THE DEFENCE

Your Honor,
The Plaintiff’s closing statements are a clear and brazen attempt to trivialize the circumstances surrounding the case by broadly interpreting Rule 3.2(3) while omitting key statements the Plaintiff itself cannot accommodate.

The Plaintiff relies on Rule 3.2(3) to treat the Defence's responses of “cannot affirm or deny” as uncontested for the purposes of a Verdict or Summary Judgment. The Defence contends that its application must remain confined to the particular facts addressed by each response, and that the Plaintiff should not be permitted to convert a limited procedural consequence into a blanket admission of liability beyond the scope of the responses concerned. A reasonable person cannot be expected to independently confirm facts where the necessary records, system access, or information are unavailable to them. The inability to verify an allegation should therefore be distinguished from an express admission of the underlying conduct.

Regarding the facts at play, for fear of regurgitating its own Answer to Complaint back to the Court, the Defence acknowledges that its Answer contains admissions concerning the occurrence of abnormal withdrawals (Fact 2), the existence of transactions originating from the banking system’s own internal accounts (Fact 3), and their lack of authorization (Fact 4). However, these admissions must be distinguished from the separate legal question of whether the Defendant personally initiated, controlled, or knowingly appropriated the disputed funds.

This distinction is consistent with the reasoning in DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42, where the Federal Court ruled in favour of the Defence after finding that the Plaintiff had failed to establish the Commonwealth’s responsibility for the alleged negligence. The Court emphasized the importance of identifying the cause of the harm and establishing the Defendant’s responsibility for it. Accordingly, the mere acknowledgment that irregular and unauthorized transactions occurred does not, in itself, establish that the Defendant personally initiated, controlled, or knowingly appropriated the disputed funds.

In their first claims, the Plaintiff relies principally on P-004 to P-008 to connect the disputed funds to the Defendant, particularly P-008, which identifies the account username “schmuck” as the receiver and withdrawer. However, the Plaintiff's interpretation of these exhibits must not be mistaken for fact, as it would be unreasonable for the Court to rely on the identification of a username alone to bypass the requirement for establishing the Defendant's responsibility within the scope of the alleged wrongful conduct. The fact that these exhibits come from the Plaintiff’s own systems casts further doubt on their veracity, as regulated and independent systems (as shown using the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin) directly contradict the exploitative narrative crafted by the Plaintiff.

The Defence further disassembles the Plaintiff’s version of events by submitting exhibits D-001 to D-004, which record searches of the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin that failed to locate the firms identified by the Plaintiff. The Defence avers that the exhibits notably originate from a libre and immutable source that has consistently served as a source of truth in other corporate and firm-related cases. Thus, these contradictions within the Plaintiff’s own evidence raise material doubts as to the Plaintiff’s ability to reliably identify the firms involved and establish the circumstances surrounding the transactions.

The Plaintiff also relies on the fact that the searches were conducted months after the disputed transactions. The timing of the searches does not justify disregarding them altogether. Although the searches do not independently establish the status of these corporations in June 2026, they remain relevant to the identification of the firms and the evidentiary context in which the Plaintiff's allegations must be assessed. The Plaintiff's criticism of their timing does not automatically give merit to their own disputed conclusions.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff argues that the “unverified” designation is merely a visual glitch, relying on P-009 and P-010, and that verification is mandatory as shown in P-011. The Defence submits that the presence of the same designation across different accounts does not establish the verification status of the specific account at the relevant time. The Plaintiff must demonstrate a direct evidential link between the designation relied upon and the disputed account, rather than infer its verification status from that of other accounts. In the absence of such evidence, the designation alone cannot establish that the disputed account was verified, and any contrary conclusion would substitute the Plaintiff's assumptions for proof. Similarly, the mere assertion that an account must be “verified,” absent any technical explanation of the verification process, does not establish that the Defendant underwent the same onboarding procedure, or even attempted to create an account in the first place.

In relation to the Claims for Relief made by the Plaintiff, under the RCCA (Part VII §7), Conversion is defined as "wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party". The Defence submits that the Plaintiff must establish not merely that unauthorized withdrawals occurred, but that the Defendant wrongfully exercised control over the specific funds with the requisite intention. In the absence of sufficient evidence resolving these questions, the Defence submits that the Plaintiff's account of the alleged appropriation should not be treated as conclusive proof of conversion.

Likewise, Part X §1 of the RCCA (Unjust Enrichment) requires the Defendant to obtain and retain a benefit at another's expense without legal justification. The Defence submits that the Plaintiff's reliance on the occurrence of unauthorized transactions and the alleged acknowledgment of approximately $600,000 does not conclusively establish receipt and retention of every disputed sum, or resolve the circumstances in which the alleged benefit was obtained. Accordingly, the Defence submits that the evidence does not sufficiently establish benefits obtained and retained by the Defendant, let alone at the Plaintiff's expense. Together with the absence of legal justification for the alleged conduct of the Defendant, the Defence asserts that the claim for unjust enrichment should not succeed.

Lastly, Interference with Business Operations (RCCA Part X §3) is defined as "intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships". The Defence submits that the existence of alleged business disruption does not, by itself, establish any intentionality to cause said business disruption. Within similar circumstances, the Court in aMoldyMuffin v. Rac76 & Henwee12 [2026] DCR 149 rejected an interference claim where the required business relationship had not been identified, and the claimed losses were speculative, reinforcing that a plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same underlying loss. Therefore, the Defence submits that the Plaintiff's claims for consequential damages and punitive damages are not be justifiable merely by the alleged financial consequences of the transactions underlying the Plaintiff's other claims.

In conclusion, the Defence rejects the Plaintiff's contention that its allegations are established merely because certain transactions occurred, because the Defence could not independently verify particular facts, or because the Plaintiff advances a particular interpretation of the exhibits. The Court must distinguish facts from baseless inferences, and determine whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of each cause of action.

The Defence respectfully requests judgment in its favour on the claims that have not been sufficiently established. Failing this, should liability be found, the Defence requests that any award be strictly limited to the losses and remedies supported by the evidence, excluding speculative and duplicative damages.

 

[CreeperTD]

Court is in recess pending verdict.

 

[CreeperTD]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT - Pellanth Credit & Banking v. Schmuck [2026] FCR 86

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made a series of unauthorized transactions from the bank which totaled $588,000. Claims that all transactions shown in evidence are linked to the Defendant by administrative records.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
Defense denies that the transactions can be linked to the Plaintiff, pointing to the lack of any external evidence of the incident beyond an external website, whose credibility has not been established to the court.

III. THE COURT’S OPINION
It appears that the ultimate decision on this case rests upon the Court’s determination as to the credibility of the evidence presented to it. The Court has certainly been frustrated throughout these proceedings with the apparent non-responsiveness of the Plaintiff to the Court’s questions. Throughout this case, the Plaintiff has exclusively used evidence from a website that the court has not been given access to, whose credibility has not been established, and which has had no external evidence corroborating it. The Court would have much preferred expert testimony by, for example, the Bank’s owner as to how the website operates, and perhaps if this had been done, there would not be so many unanswered questions at the end of these proceedings.

The Evidence

Before going further, it’s important to note that, as stated in JSA Part II § 2(1)(a), the Burden of Proof in this case rests entirely on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff should adequately establish all facts to the Court such that the Court can believe, on a balance of probabilities, all of those facts are likely true. This becomes an issue when so many facts are reliant upon assertions made by the Plaintiff without evidence clearly supporting those statements. For example, when asked how the transactions were unusual and/or unauthorized, the Plaintiff stated only “The defendant used a vulnerability in the Pellanth website to immediately request funds multiple times from a corporate account, allowing that money to be withdrawed [sic] and sending the corporate account into the negatives on pellanth's end.” What this vulnerability was has not been established to the court through evidence, the Plaintiff has only asserted it to be true. The same goes for the “Unverified” tag on the Defendant’s account. Again, the Plaintiff simply asserts that all users get the tag, showing a selection of a few other individuals, but fails to explain why this happens or how the website actually verifies individuals in the first place.

All of these discrepancies cast doubt on the veracity of Plaintiff’s claims, as well as the integrity of the evidence presented. Does the Plaintiff suppose that the Court should trust their statements without evidence or witness testimony supporting them? The Court does not believe so. These discrepancies have caused confusion, and that confusion has, overall, harmed Plaintiff’s case.

The Charges

Let us refocus our attention upon the claims made by the Plaintiff for relief. The Plaintiff listed three claims of relief: 1) Conversion, 2) Unjust Enrichment, and 3) Tortious Interference with Business Relations.

The Civil Violation of Conversion, upon which a majority of this case rests, is defined in RCCA Part VII § 7 as follows:

7. Conversion
Violation Type: Intentional
Remedy: Treble damages; Restitution
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and
(b) intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; and
(c) the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by:
(i) stealing property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner; or
(ii) obtaining property through deception, lies, or false statements; or
(iii) embezzlement or obtaining property by false pretences; or
(iv) knowingly acquiring lost property without taking reasonable measures to return it to the owner; or
(v) obtaining property by false promise pursuant to a scheme to defraud; or
(vi) extortion.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the action occurs in the End, Nether wild, or everwild; or
(e) the defendant reasonably believed they had a right to the property.

In order for the court to find for the Plaintiff on this claim, all aspects of the definition must be proven to the court on a balance of probabilities, especially when the Defense denies some of the key facts of the case. Defense has also challenged the credibility of the evidence presented, noting that the key evidence exhibits come from a website that is apparently owned and operated by the Plaintiff, and that no external evidence of the funds being transferred has been presented. The Court agrees that this is an issue. Why has the Plaintiff not shown logs from either in-game or from the official economy API of funds being transferred from the firm account of the Plaintiff to the Defendant? There has not at any point been a defense of the website’s integrity, nor an explanation to the Court of how the website operates. It is not the responsibility of the Court to seek out the answers to these questions, rather Plaintiff should ensure that the incident and its circumstances are fully explained, such that the average person might understand what occurred, and how it occurred. A closed-court thread providing testimony as to what exactly the alleged “security flaw” was, for example, might have been quite compelling for the Court, and yet Plaintiff never saw fit to do so. Without external evidence supporting what this website, which has not been verified by any accountable authority, such as the staff team, is logging, the Court does not believe that the evidence presented is convincing enough to support the allegation that an unauthorized transfer of funds occurred that ended up with the Defendant. Not only is the court concerned about what this “Capital Withdrawal” logged in P-002 and P-003 actually entails, and what about it is, at face value, “abnormal [or] unauthorized,” but also is concerned, further, at what systems are in place to verify the identity of individuals using the website, especially because there appears to be no visual logging of when a user is “Verified.” Therefore, the Court is not convinced that Defendant wrongfully took any property from the Plaintiff, nor that such an action was against the law, as Plaintiff’s evidence and explanations have proved inadequate.

Given that Plaintiff has been found to have not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Defendant took any property from Plaintiff, the Court further cannot find that Defendant “obtain[ed] and retain[ed] a benefit at another’s expense” (RCCA Part X § 1).

RCCA Part X § 2 is clear about what is required for an individual to commit the Civil Violation of Tortious Interference with Business Relations; a person “intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships.” Plaintiff claims that the loss of funds in the incident “directly disrupted the ordinary operations of Pellanth Company,” impairing “the company's ability to conduct business, meet obligations, and provide services,” and that this “affected approximately one hundred individuals connected to the company's operations.” The Plaintiff has provided no evidence or witness testimony to support this claim. Although it can be reasoned that any loss of funds might potentially affect a business’s “economic relationships,” pure speculation is not sufficient to back up a civil claim. Without any evidence supporting this claim, regardless of how the court finds on the other offenses, it cannot be granted by the Court.

The claim for Consequential Damages is dismissed without further consideration. RCCA Part III § 5(1)(ii) states that Worsening Conditions are awarded for harm that was “unforeseen or unrelated to the original harm.” The loss of funds is the only harm that Plaintiff has presented to the Court, and the only harm that evidence has been provided for. Therefore, this prayer cannot be granted.

IV. DECISION

After due consideration, the Court finds the following:

All prayers and claims of relief made by the Plaintiff are denied. The Plaintiff has failed to prove the underlying facts of the case to the Court on a balance of probabilities.

Due to the Defendant’s failure to appear before the Court, the Legal Fees shall be diminished in line with RCCA Part III § 7(4) to only 15% of the total case value. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay the Defendant $121,950. The Court notes that statute does not allow it to void this award, or to grant it to Defendant’s Counsel.

The Federal Court thanks both parties for their time. This Court is now adjourned.

So Ordered,
Judge CreeperTD