. SureWin4U’s purported sole business model was that investors’ moneys would go towards funding professional gamblers generating profits for the Scheme by playing baccarat at casinos using sure-win methods devised by the Scheme. It is now clear that this business model was non-existent.3 While the premise of such fraudulent schemes may seem incredulous, nonetheless, it is not uncommon for fraudsters to succeed in selling these schemes to investors who probably should have known better typically with the benefit of hindsight. This case is a quintessential example. Should the law exculpate such

;  3AB356–3AB357. (i) the non-payment of any sums due under the Tembusu Loan Agreement (cl 11.1.1);(ii) the breach of any term of the Tembusu Loan Agreement or the associated agreements relating to the share charge, the Tembusu Guarantee and the debenture (cl 11.1.3);(iii) the cross-default by FTMS in relation to its other loans (cl 11.1.4); and(iv) the insolvency of FTMS (cl 11.1.7).There was no cure period with respect to cl 11.1.3 (in relation to the breach or