Documentary Evidence of Non-Performance, Reversals and Evasion.

Refund Commitment

Following termination on 6 January 2024, Mr Olujobi acknowledged the failed timeframe and committed Market Kinetics to refund US$61,000 by 15 March. The promise was explicit; the deadline was broken.

To the extent that we did not meet the agreed-upon timeline, we will honor our refund clause as requested. We will refund USD$61K below by March 15th 2024. Thank you for the opportunity and we will communicate as needed until then.

— Mr Courtney Olujobi, Market Kinetics

False Management Transition Claim and Revised Refund Timeline

Market Kinetics claimed new management and ownership, said Mr Olujobi had departed and described Mr Gunawardhana’s role as “limited advisory”. It dismissed 15 March as an error and substituted 15 June, without disputing the refund obligation.

The same correspondence said Mr Gunawardhana requested expedited repayment, contradicting the attempt to distance him from the matter. No formal management change was disclosed; the preserved Nevada record later showed revocation.

March–June emails signed “Brittney” came from [email protected]. Retained metadata indicates infrastructure shared with Mr Gunawardhana’s correspondence; this supports scrutiny of the explanation but does not alone establish the email author.

CONTACTANT formation dates and corporate records

A New Funding Proposition While the Existing Refund Remained Unpaid

In May 2024, Market Kinetics claimed two interested funding groups and offered an introduction to “Matt”, whose CONTACTANT connection is inferred. The client declined. A proposed new engagement did not discharge the existing refund obligation.

The Obligation Expressly Reaffirmed

On 27 May, Market Kinetics expressly reaffirmed the refund and again identified Mr Gunawardhana as involved in expediting it.

Just to be clear we have not refused to refund what you have paid us. A member who is no longer with us made an error not looking at the contract. Mr Gunawardhana wanted us to expedite the refund and we will abide by the agreement.

— [email protected], 27 May 2024

Abrupt Reversal, Nineteen Days Later

Nineteen days later, Market Kinetics reversed its position, blamed the client’s communication and refused to expedite repayment. It disputed neither the amount nor the obligation and supplied no particulars substantiating its accusation of bad faith.

The email instructed: “You can wait until we refund you the amount of US$61,000.00 or have your attorney write to us to go into arbitration” and demanded: “Please don’t send us anymore email replies or negotiations.”

Upon receiving this email we had an internal discussion and we decided not to expedite because our management does not believe your communication is in good faith. After carefully examining all email correspondence we concluded your side has always blamed Market Kinetics and never taken accountability on your behalf.

— [email protected], 15 June 2024

Further Deadlines Pass Without Payment

The 5 and 19 July deadlines passed without payment or transfer confirmation. The latter extension was granted at Mr Gunawardhana’s own request. Further accommodation again secured nothing.

Strategic Resistance Regarding Legal Recovery and Direct Evasion

Mr Gunawardhana invoked purported new leadership linked to BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street who could “just litigate and delay the process spending more than what is owed.” The prospect of expensive resistance was put to a person seeking an acknowledged refund.

$100K is not much for them to spend on legal… former BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street or affiliated power players.

— Mr Shirona Gunawardhana, LinkedIn

Invoice Routing and Creditor Separation

Mr Gunawardhana required invoices in the introducing party’s personal name, delivery to a Fort Wayne address and printed-mail communication. The process addressed only that individual’s contribution, disregarding the larger sums contributed through the client entity. Even this restricted route produced no payment.

Make the invoice from you not [the company you represent]. Please follow the instructions… Keep our communications via printed mail.

— Mr Shirona Gunawardhana, messaging platform

Compliance, Silence and Blocking

The introducing party complied fully: invoices were reformatted, correspondence restricted to postal channels and hardcopies dispatched at personal expense. No repayment followed. After a final appeal concerning personal savings, Mr Gunawardhana blocked the individual. The person who had vouched for him was left unpaid and without a functioning channel for resolution.

You going silent is so frustrating… This is a huge part of my life savings though it maybe small in the US context and it hurts so much. Please can you settle as promised?

— Introducing party, final message before blocking

Evasion of Arbitration and Formal Legal Demand Processes

Market Kinetics directed the client to have an attorney write regarding arbitration. A September demand was redirected to its “Legal Department” after Mr Olujobi disclaimed ownership. When Australian and US counsel issued formal demands, those demands were ignored. All communication ceased. Invoking legal process became another means of avoiding resolution.

Conduct Extending to Other Parties

The introducing party’s personal contribution, compliance and subsequent blocking extend this record beyond company-to-company correspondence. Their recovery experience is documented above.

A Separate Account of Abandoned Commercial Promises

A professional contact with direct prior dealings reported materially similar abandoned commitments in an unrelated commercial matter. This is a separate account, not proof of every assertion in this engagement; it raises a serious concern that the conduct was not isolated.

To be fully transparent, he has done something similar to us and abandoned his promises. He has not fulfilled his promises from another business pursuit. It is sad. He has proven himself to be untrustworthy.

— Independent professional contact