The Contract Trap

The Corinth Group operates through a multi-document contract suite that spans two jurisdictions — Switzerland and England & Wales. Multiple independent complainants describe a consistent pattern: an initial term sheet is signed with a Swiss entity, fees are collected, and then a separate suite of execution documents shifts the funding obligation to a different entity in a different jurisdiction. This analysis examines the contract structure as documented from actual agreements reviewed in 2026.

The contract suite typically consists of the following documents:

• Term Sheet — Signed with Corinth Group of Switzerland (Stadtgartenweg 6, Chur, Graubünden). This is the document under which fees are collected. It contains the representations about “regulated and licensed” investment funds, the fee schedule, and the refund clause (Article 26). Governed by Swiss law, with the Court of Chur as exclusive jurisdiction. [Term Sheet, Articles 6, 26, 30, 32]
• Debenture Facility Agreement — Names a UK Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) as the “Lender.” This is the document that contains the actual funding obligation — and the three escape clauses (Clauses 5.6, 6.1, 6.6) that allow the lender to walk away. Governed by English law. [Debenture Facility Agreement]
• Promoter Security Agreement — Requires the client’s company directors to provide personal guarantees and security over their shares to the UK SPV. [Promoter Security Agreement]
• Borrower Security Agreement — Grants the UK SPV a fixed and floating charge over all assets of the client’s company. [Borrower Security Agreement]
• Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) — Transfers a percentage of the client’s company to the UK SPV. [SPA]

The critical observation is the jurisdictional split: the money goes to Switzerland under Swiss law, but the funding promise sits in English-law documents with a different counterparty. When the English-law debenture is voided via its built-in escape clauses, the Swiss entity retains the fees with no corresponding obligation anywhere. Multiple complainants describe this structure as making recovery prohibitively difficult. [Third-party complainant statements; contract review, 2026]

According to third-party reports on consumer complaint platforms, this contract suite structure has remained substantially consistent across multiple corporate identities — from Curatio Capital through Corinth Group to Three Tuns — spanning more than a decade. The earliest documented complaint referencing this pattern dates to March 2014 on Ripoff Report, while the most recent complainant reports describe substantially the same structure in 2025. [Ripoff Report #1134964, March 2014; Diebewertung.de, 2023; Verbraucherschutzforum Berlin]

The companies involved in this contract structure are registered across multiple jurisdictions. The Swiss entities — including Corinth Management Services AG (CHE-103.982.016), Corinth Investment Holdings AG (CHE-102.223.770), and Corinth Capital AG (CHE-102.223.787) — are all registered at the same address: Stadtgartenweg 6, 7000 Chur. All six Swiss AGs list the same sole signatory: Jurate Kairiene, a Lithuanian national identified in Swiss commercial register records as having sole signing authority for every Corinth Group AG. The UK entities are registered at Pluto House, Tunbridge Wells, and are directed by Alec Louw Theunissen, a South African national whose Companies House record shows two separate officer profiles spanning approximately 30 dissolved or dormant companies. The sole regulated entity in the network — Corinth Fund Management Ltd in Cyprus — had its Alternative Investment Fund Manager licence revoked by CySEC after approximately 7.5 months. [Swiss Commercial Register; Companies House, UK; CySEC AIFM Register]

Understanding this contract structure is essential for anyone who has been approached by a Corinth Group entity, a Three Tuns entity, or any firm offering private equity funding in exchange for upfront “cost contribution” fees payable to a Swiss AG. The six steps documented below trace the complete lifecycle of a typical engagement as described by multiple independent complainants. [Author’s assessment based on contract review and third-party reports]

How the Trap Works

Enforcement Analysis

The contract suite creates a jurisdictional trap that makes recovery structurally difficult:

• Swiss courts — The term sheet names the Court of Chur as exclusive jurisdiction. Pursuing litigation in Switzerland from abroad requires a Swiss lawyer, court translation, and significant upfront costs. Complainants describe this as prohibitively expensive, particularly after having already lost EUR 50,000–120,000 in fees. [Term Sheet, Article 32]
• English courts — The debenture and security agreements are governed by English law. But the counterparty (the UK SPV) may not exist, may be dormant, or may have no assets. Suing a non-existent or insolvent entity yields no recovery. [Debenture Agreement; Companies House records]
• The gap — The money sits in Switzerland. The obligation sat in England. When the English obligation is voided, no entity in any jurisdiction has an enforceable obligation to return the fees. The Swiss entity can claim the fee was earned for “services rendered” under the term sheet. The English SPV — if it exists at all — has no assets and no obligation after the debenture is voided.

This dual-jurisdiction structure means that a complainant must effectively coordinate legal action in two countries simultaneously against two different entities under two different legal systems to have any prospect of recovery. According to complainants, this is precisely the barrier that prevents most victims from pursuing claims. [Third-party complainant statements; legal analysis]

Warning Signs

Based on the contract structure documented above and patterns described by multiple complainants, the following warning signs may indicate an advance-fee fraud scheme:

1. Upfront fees described as “cost contributions” or “due diligence fees” — Legitimate private equity firms and investment funds do not typically require five- or six-figure upfront payments from companies seeking funding. Fee structures in genuine transactions are usually deducted from the investment amount at closing.
2. Claims of “regulated and licensed” status without verifiable evidence — Always check the relevant regulatory authority’s public register (FINMA, FCA, CySEC, BaFin) before signing any agreement. If a firm claims to operate “regulated and licensed investment funds,” the fund should appear on the regulator’s register.
3. Counterparty switch between signing and execution — If the entity collecting your fee is different from the entity making the funding promise, ask why. Demand that the funding obligation be in the same contract and with the same entity that received your money.
4. Escape clauses that permit non-performance “for whatever reason” — Read every clause of every document. A funding commitment that can be voided “for whatever reason” is not a commitment at all. Any competent commercial lawyer will flag this immediately.
5. Governing law in a jurisdiction expensive to litigate — If you are a small business in Africa or Asia and the contract is governed by Swiss law with jurisdiction in Chur, consider whether you could realistically pursue a claim if things go wrong.
6. Serviced office addresses shared by multiple related companies — Check whether the counterparty’s registered address is a serviced office. Search the address on Companies House or the relevant registry to see how many other companies are registered there.
7. Name-dropping prestigious institutions without verifiable connections — Claims of partnerships with major banks, sovereign wealth funds, or Fortune 500 companies should be independently verified. Ask for written confirmation from the named institution.
8. Identical excuses delivered to different clients at different times — If the reason for delay sounds rehearsed or you discover other clients were told the same story, this may indicate a coordinated script rather than genuine commercial difficulty.

If you have already paid fees and recognise the pattern described on this page, consider contacting the regulatory authorities listed below and seeking independent legal advice. [Author’s assessment based on documented contract analysis and third-party complainant reports]

Related Entities

People Involved

Report to Authorities