Mirror Trading International Fallout Raises Fresh Alarm as Same Players Surface in the Banxso Estate

The long-running liquidation of Mirror Trading International, still regarded as one of the largest crypto-related collapses in the world, is once again under international scrutiny following detailed allegations made in a United States bankruptcy court. The revelations concern the forensic consultant Craig Pedersen, who has become a pivotal figure in the tracing and recovery of Bitcoin for the South African liquidation team.

According to submissions filed in the US, Pedersen’s mandate includes a five per cent contingency fee on all Bitcoin recovered globally, in addition to hourly billing. The American legal team argued that this arrangement created a substantial personal financial interest in the outcome of the liquidation, compromising his impartiality as an expert and colouring his testimony. The documents further accuse him of providing “false and evasive” answers when questioned about the arrangement.

If the recovery projections hold, Pedersen could earn as much as 160 million dollars. That scale of compensation has raised concerns about whether the objectives of MTI’s liquidation are aligned with creditor recovery or with the financial incentives of those contracted to manage the process and their service providers.

An insolvency specialist observing the case, who asked not to be identified, described the fee structure as “well beyond the bounds of ordinary forensic practice” and said it “casts a cloud over every analysis, recommendation and conclusion within the MTI estate”.

Familiar Names and Familiar Concerns: Enter Banxso

It is against this backdrop that the unfolding situation at Banxso is drawing heightened attention. Though a separate matter, Banxso’s liquidation application is now drawing the same constellation of practitioners and service providers, prompting questions about whether the practices criticised in MTI may be re-emerging in a second high-value estate.

Chief among the concerns is that many of those involved in the MTI liquidation have now taken up near-identical positions within Banxso. They include:

• Pedersen, who has again appeared as the estate’s forensic investigator
• Herman Bester, promoted for appointment as liquidator
• Pierre du Toit, serving as the estate’s legal practitioner, as in MTI

A Website and a Letter Predicting an Appointment

Well before any official determination by the courts in August 2025, an online campaign emerged encouraging Banxso creditors to support the appointment of Bester as provisional liquidator. The website published a letter dated October 25, 2024, authored electronically by Bester and addressed to “all investors and potential creditors in Banxso (Pty) Ltd”.

The letter announced the liquidation application and explicitly requested creditors to submit requisitions supporting Bester’s appointment. Its circulation through a website dedicated to rallying support for a particular liquidator has raised concerns about the propriety of canvassing appointments through public platforms. Bester was ultimately appointed.

A senior insolvency practitioner, speaking anonymously, noted that “public solicitation for appointment is highly unusual and risks undermining confidence in the independence of the legal process brought against the company”.

Alleged Objections Over Conflicts of Interest

Questions have also emerged regarding the role of attorney Pierre du Toit, who represented the applicants seeking Banxso’s liquidation and later became the estate’s legal practitioner. According to individual’s familiar with internal discussions, at least one liquidator raised objections over the perceived conflict of interest and it should be referred to the LPCSA (Legal Practitioners Council of South Africa) for guidance, though in the end these concerns did not prevent his appointment.

The source further detailed that it was the same Master of the high Court in both matters, Mr Mabusela, who overrode these concerns and sanctioned the request for Du Toits appointment by Bester.

Critics note that du Toit holds parallel roles in MTI, giving rise to concern that the same cluster of professionals is consolidating authority across multiple estates worth hundreds of millions of rand.

A Meeting That Deepened Suspicion

Concerns intensified further following a meeting between Banxso’s senior team and the liquidators. An individual with knowledge of the meeting said Pedersen attended but introduced himself only as “Craig”. According to the source, it was Bester who confirmed Pedersen’s appointment as the forensic investigator for the estate.

When Banxso’s legal representatives asked for a signed mandate or formal appointment letter, neither Pedersen nor Bester could produce one. The documents were, according to the source, “not available but would be provided at a later date”.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the encounter “left the impression of an estate already being driven by individuals whose authority had not yet been transparently formalised”.

Echoes of MTI That Are Difficult to Ignore

The Banxso case, still in its early stages, now reflects several striking similarities with MTI:

• the same forensic consultant with a previously undisclosed financial interest
• the same legal practitioner directing strategy
• the same liquidator promoted for appointment in advance
• the same Master of the High Court

While there is no public indication that Banxso has adopted a contingency-based remuneration structure like MTI’s, the re-appearance of the same personnel has prompted speculation as to whether similar arrangements may exist behind closed doors..

A System in Need of Daylight

South Africa’s liquidation system relies heavily on trust, transparency and the independence of those appointed to act on behalf of creditors. Yet the sequence of events in MTI, now beginning to echo in Banxso, is prompting uncomfortable questions about the structure of these appointments and the incentives operating within them.

Many creditors in Banxso fear a repeat of MTI: years of litigation, high professional fees and sluggish or non-existent returns. For now, the most pressing questions remain unanswered. But the overlap between the two estates cannot be explained away as coincidence.

As one insider put it, “what is happening here is either a consolidation of extraordinary expertise or a consolidation of extraordinary opportunity. The public deserves to know which one it is”.