Officials of the Committee met with representative of Metro on 9 May 2000 and 17 May 2000. Both meetings were held at the offices of Metro in Springs. The first meeting was attended by Messrs W Roos, from the office of Metro’s attorneys, N Meyer, the bookkeeper, Beswick, Holsthauzen and an investor nominated to attend the meeting by the Metro committee. The bookkeeper did not hesitate to answer all questions put to him by the investigating officials in so far the accounting system made it possible. The accounting records were not up to date. A trial balance was not available and it could not be determined with certainty what amount was owed to investors.

In section 3 it was stated that Holsthauzen/Metro undertook to service the approximately R4.1 million owed to Zuchiro investors, who received 10 per cent interest per month. The interest ledger indicated that from April 1999 to 2 February 2000 Metro paid R10.778 million in interest to these investors. This was evidently incorrect, because on the one hand, 10 per cent per month on R4.1 million for April 1999 to January 2000 should have been approximately the same amount as the capital invested, namely R4.1 million. On the other hand, if the interest paid was R10.778 million, the amount owed to Zuchiro investors was much more than R4.1 million.

It appears from handwritten documents which were made available by Ms Strydom, the company secretary, that the interest received by a number of investors exceeded the amounts invested by them. A certain D E Beswick, for example, invested R50 000, apparently on 17 December 1998, on which he/she earned R70 000 interest. The investor was also returned his/her investment of R50 000. The same investor also made an investment of R100 000 during October 1998, on which he/she received R165 000 interest. The investor has not yet received the initial investment of R100 000. It appears from these handwritten documents that Metro received money from investors up to 28 April 2000. On that day, an investor with the surname of Ramakhale invested R80 000 with Metro.

The officials requested certain information which was not available on 8 May 2000. They were assured that this information would be made available not later than 12 May 2000. It is important to note that it is neither required of investigating officials to conduct forensic audits of the entities investigated by them nor to establish whether fraud has been committed. They are required, in terms of section 7(3) of the Act, "... to ascertain whether this Act is being observed by any person to whom it applies, or to obtain any information required by the committee in relation to a preliminary investigation or an investigation by it in terms of this Act ...". In all investigations the officials have to report to the Committee whether unfair business practices exist or may come into existence.

The required information was not available on the date promised and the bookkeeper told an official of the Committee that he does not intend updating the books unless he is paid the fees due to him. The consequences of Metro’s cash flow problems now became more profound. On 17 May 2000 the electricity supply to the Metro offices was discontinued.

Officials of the Committee again met with Holsthauzen and Bezwick on 17 May 2000. An investor handed a copy of a paid cheque to officials. This cheque, made out to C Holsthauzen, was for R400 000. The investor said that he was requested by Holsthauzen to draw the cheque in his (Holsthauzen’s) favour, It appears from a cursory inspection of Holsthauzen’s personal bank statements that cheques were made out in his favour by investors on a number of occasions. This was readily confirmed by him. It is also clear from a cursory inspection of copies of Metro deposit slips that Holsthauzen did not deposit the amounts he received in this fashion into Metro’s bank account. He said that there was no need to deposit the funds thus received into the Metro account because he often paid Metro’s overheads and at times also the interest due to investors. There is, without any doubt, a commingling of Holsthauzen’s and Metro’s funds. Metro uses seven light bakkies to collect from and take cash to the branches. These bakkies are leased by Holsthauzen in his personal capacity. The same applies to a number of offices from which the branches operate.

Holsthauzen alleged that the investor concerned said that he (the investor) told him that he would prefer, for "tax reasons", to draw the cheque in Holsthauzen’s favour. The cash loan business is exactly what the name conveys. Clients of these businesses receive the money that they borrow in cash and they invariably redeem the loans also in cash. If an investor were to receive his/her interest in cash, there could be a temptation to withhold this source of income from the South African Revenue Services.

A serious implication of the commingling of Holsthauzen’s and Metro’s funds was that the figures reflected in Metro’s books of account could not reflect the correct financial position of Metro, even if they were kept up to date.

Bezwick wanted to know from the officials what they (Holsthauzen and himself) were guilty of. The enabling nature of the Act was again explained to him. It was explained to him, for example, that the Metro advertisements probably misled consumers and that the manner in which the share price was fixed (literally) could have unreasonably misled investors. It was put to Holsthauzen and Beswick that the share price of R1 was a figure arrived at without any basis or justification whatsoever. Both agreed with the statement that the selling price of R1 per share was fabricated. Prospective consumers who were interested in buying shares were not presented with any financial figures. They did not know whether Metro was profitable or solvent. They were interested only in the lucrative yield on their investments promised to them by Metro, Holsthauzen and Bezwick.