Talk:Opes Prime

April 2011
I have noticed that a NPOV dispute has been logged against this page, but no explanation or supporting discussion has been posted to identify any part of the article as having a non-neutral point of view. I have posted the bulk of the material on this page. The information comprises factual information about the company, its liquidation and the progress of criminal proceedings against three of the former directors. The presentation regarding the criminal case is entirely factual and referenced to public domain information available from major Australian newspapers. The evidence presented at the criminal proceedings to date has all been presented by the prosecution because that is the stage that the proceedings have reached. No defence evidence has yet been presented in court so none is capable of being presented or referenced in this article. When defence evidence is presented in court, it will be included in this article. The article therefore is a neutral presentation of the situation such as is capable of being presented at the moment.

If someone has a specific complaint regarding neutrality, could they please indicate what the issue is.

OpesTruth (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear well-versed in the ways of Wikipedia, so your single-purpose account, as well as its POV name, have attracted my attention; you are encouraged to read and follow the Wikipedia guidlines in this respect lest you appear to be presenting information in the article that advocates a particular agenda. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 13:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I am not going to reveal my identity or other links so we will just have to leave this POV dispute based as it is on my anonymity and allow the further information and evidence to emerge in the fullness of time until the full truth about Opes Prime is revealed and I can assemble it here. OpesTruth (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No-one is asking you to unveil your identity or discontinue editing this article. However your approach will probably lead to your contributions being scrutinised very closely, so you will have to take particular care to satisfy the verifiability, neutrality and conflict of interest policies. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 09:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

July 2014: The Opes Prime page has not been updated in many, many months. Neither has the story been completed. Mr Smith was acquitted. Unfortunately much of the tenor of what is in the main article slavishly follows the 'story' concocted by the ANZ/ASIC pairing, which was comprehensively demolished in Mr Smith's trial. Either the author of this article should edit it to meet the facts, or the main page should now be clearly marked as both incomplete and unreliable.

Additonal reference

 * Murphy's law: broker's collapse hits his millions, Vanda Carson and Kate McClymont, April 1, 2008, The Melbourne-based Mr Emini is also linked to two businessman - the fashion designer Christopher Chronis and an accountant, Michael Hymer - who have ties to the business empire of the drugs boss Tony Mokbel. For over a decade Mr Hymer has helped manage the business affairs of Mokbel, now in jail in Greece fighting extradition to Australia on drug charges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Štefica Horvat (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)