evidence in the best li kind spent a lot of time in south korea to fix the situation and to they get his money back they got involved with the minister of strategy and finance everybody confirmed let's do another deal you invest five billion into the green economy and that was to be specifically shipping industry from the german court to the southern district court didn't of new york just at that point the local judge decided now i'm not willing to accept any more new documents so basically they deprived us off the rights to once and for all get rid of the allegation that the affidavit is projects we were never given the right to have with no discernable business somehow obtained access to eight billion euro for investment in the korean economy that is far fetched on its own but that's just the beginning to tell gets more incredible from the according to plaintiff in twenty thousand one hundred and fifty one of its partners obtained access to three billion euro supposedly transferred that to another partner only to have it stolen outright by where he backed fast forward another two years another one of plaintiffs partners somehow got access to another five billion euro and lo and behold transferred it in the same exact way only to have that five billion euro stolen by way back for a grand total of eight billion euro stolen as implausible as all that is on its face that's only the tip of the iceberg diving into the exhibit says the district court did in great detail shows inconsistency is the lower reflecting not only that the claim is implausible but that it is a fabrication the district court saw through plaintiff through his issuing an extensive twenty nine page opinion cataloging in great detail the numerous inconsistency is the manufactured exhibit even a pending some of the more egregious examples of the two at the pinion and while the district court resolved the motion to dismiss purely on the complaint and the exhibits attached there too and the district court was very clear about that in the opening paragraphs of its opinion and putting its foot no one when considering the accompanying motion for sanctions the district court went beyond and considered the additional exhibits that had been filed in evidence that had been invited to the face of the that you rely on and that the district court one of the most telling and consistencies in the documentation sure your honor and just to be clear before we set aside the transaction numbers the transaction numbers are called unique transaction reference number and that's that's how the banks identify their transactions the court in a footnote specifically noted that the assertion that those numbers are always the same is implausible on its face given it's at odds with the plain meaning of the word unique indeed those same numbers are included on three separate transactions including a transaction involving wells fargo that plaintiff now claims that erroneous lea attached to the original complaint so you can see those sometimes begins with an eight sometimes it begins with a nine and the sequence of numbers is the same thereafter and that same number sometimes also is the account number from a brick financial and the beast can be observed on appears on maybrick letterhead that document also includes a reference to the officers s n s s an which i believe everyone has considered to be a reference to social security number a pin number and then is dipped code which the district court noted is a zip code associated with new hampshire and of course that the overlapping signatures bear no resemblance to each other and that's on a seventy one dollars and a ninety are also numerous other inconsistency as detailed in the district court's opinion and in our briefing including in one place on the alleged transaction documents reflecting in the three billion euro transaction there's a reference to work  on which is an entity that is never again named in any of the papers and that was the supposedly owner of the funds on the agreement that is appended to the complaint and that can be observed on page thirty five dollars there are also various inconsistent season the date with the transactions occurring months apart or references to the transactions occurring months apart and plaintiff has tried to explain away some of those by indicating that the references are in the western european date format however even on the same page of certain of plaintiff documents there are references to for instance august th and then five august and then a five so we've even on the documents plaintiff has submitted there's no consistency court held in gallup st cheney its space ship actually frivolous and subject to dismissal and the court was very clear in detailing that it was referring solely to the complaint and the exhibits in reaching it decision on the twelve b six motion to dismiss the employer's ability though was just one of the grounds for the court's dismissal of this complaint with prejudice despite finding in in detail that the complaint was frivolous and implausible the court went through each of factual claims additionally determining that each claim was legally defective in its own right which serves as a separate basis for dismissal in a firm and sear for instance plaintiff alleges misrepresentation but nowhere in the complaint are there any specifics alleged with respect to the misrepresentation there's no speaker there's no recipient there's no time there's no date and there's not even any real substance to the allegations of misrepresentation which falls far short of n requirements of rule nine b as to the negligent misrepresentation claim that suffers from the additional defect of the absence of any special relationship new york laws well settled that there is no special relationship between a bank and a deposit or and moreover as the district court noted plaintiff doesn't even allege it was the depositor of the funds here instead alleging the money was deposited in the st instance by hefty amounts to the three billion alleged three billion and by  respect to the alleged five billion the conversion claim is defective for virtually the same reasons a bank can't convert funds that are on the posit and the plaintiff here was not even the alleged depositor of the phones and the contract claims fail because plaintiff has never identified any contract let alone the specific provisions identified so we respectfully submit in addition to i'm sorry your honors and the and just the nourishment claim which made a reappearance in the a district court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because plaintiff abandoned did not submit any response to plaintiff to a pelleas motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim the court dismissed it as having been abandoned  well settled that this court ordinarily does not consider claims that were not briefed or argued below and even if the court were to consider the claim the unjust enrichment claim is merely duplicative of the other defective claims asserted by plaintiff here the rd basis for dismissal and the basis for the monetary sanctions asserted here held here by the district court was the repeated submission a forged documents and here the court was entitle to and did go beyond the complain and considered evidence that was submitted outside the four corners of the complaint exhibits among the things the court considered were three separate affidavits submitted by the do it you bank anti financial crimes division now plaintiff has tried to make an issue of those affidavits saying mr cobb and ms donovan can't be relied on because they sit in new york as ms donovan explains in her affidavit however deutsche bank's anti financial crimes unit on surprisingly operates on an international forged and the apostolos legibly appended to the affidavit is not only facially incomplete it bears the forged signature of a german judge as confirmed in a letter that our council our colleagues in frankfurt were able to get in letter format from the frankfurt regional court so for all those serious incidents your court was well within its discretion in awarding sanctions here both monetary and dismissing the complaint with pre thing that changes the transaction would be the transaction caught that further as i said before on the  another we never got a chance for hearing we never got a chance to present any witnesses because apparently in this case we were trying the case in the pleading stage saying this cannot have happened because the contract was made after the transaction when you turned that data round in the way it is written in europe the contract was made about a couple of months before the transaction got right and this came your time is up that thank you for your ram argument a thank you to both of you will reserve decision