Obstruction of Business Succession
— Record of Irregularities Involving BATONZ
This page documents irregularities encountered during the business succession process for my mother’s small business. The events described here are based on emails, screenshots, phone records, and written responses preserved as primary evidence.
1. Overview of the Case
In 2024, we attempted to use the business succession service BATONZ (Batonzu) to find a buyer for my mother’s business.
Initially, the process seemed normal. We were matched with multiple potential buyers, some of whom showed strong interest.
However, as the process progressed, several irregularities emerged:
- Buyers who expressed clear interest were rejected without our knowledge
- BATONZ provided contradictory explanations regarding the rejections
- In some cases, reasons presented to us differed from reasons presented to buyers
- There were inconsistencies in internal communication logs
These actions significantly delayed and obstructed the business succession process.
2. Core Issue — A Buyer Was Rejected Without Our Knowledge
The most serious issue occurred when a buyer who was ready to proceed was rejected by BATONZ without informing us.
This buyer had:
- Reviewed our documents
- Asked detailed questions
- Expressed willingness to visit the business site
- Indicated intent to move forward
However, BATONZ later stated that this buyer was “declined” — even though we never declined them.
When we asked BATONZ for an explanation, the reasons given were vague, inconsistent, and changed over time.
This contradiction suggested that decisions were being made on our behalf without our consent.
3. Contradictory Explanations from BATONZ
When we repeatedly requested clarification, BATONZ provided explanations that did not match:
- What the buyer was told
- What we were told previously
- What the system logs implied
Examples include:
- “The buyer decided to withdraw.” → contradicted by buyer’s earlier messages
- “There was a misunderstanding on your part.” → no specific misunderstanding identified
- “Our staff member made an error.” → no details given
These contradictory explanations raised the possibility of intentional obstruction or unauthorized decision-making.
4. Inquiry Letter to BATONZ — Request for Explanation
After identifying multiple inconsistencies, we sent BATONZ a formal written inquiry. In the letter, we requested:
- A clear explanation of why the buyer was marked as “declined”
- Disclosure of the actual internal communication record
- Clarification of who made the decision and on what grounds
- Confirmation that BATONZ had not acted without our consent
The inquiry also asked why BATONZ provided contradictory explanations and why basic transparency was lacking.
5. BATONZ’s Response — Vague and Inconsistent
BATONZ eventually replied, but the explanation raised further concerns. Their main points were:
- “We declined the buyer due to insufficient information on their side.”
- “There was miscommunication between staff.”
- “We apologize for any confusion caused.”
However, these statements contradicted:
- The buyer’s documented interest
- The communication history preserved in screenshots
- Earlier statements from BATONZ staff
BATONZ did not provide:
- Names of the staff involved
- Internal logs
- Exact decision-making process
- Any evidence supporting their explanation
The response lacked concrete details, suggesting an attempt to avoid accountability.
6. Differences Between BATONZ’s Explanation to Us and to the Buyer
A key contradiction emerged when comparing:
- What BATONZ told us
- What BATONZ told the buyer
These explanations did not match.
Example:
- BATONZ to us: “The buyer withdrew voluntarily.”
- BATONZ to buyer: “The seller declined the match.”
Both statements cannot be true simultaneously.
We confirmed that we had never declined the buyer. The contradiction suggests that:
BATONZ presented different, mutually incompatible reasons to each party.
7. Internal Inconsistencies in BATONZ’s Communication
Throughout the exchanges, several additional inconsistencies were found:
- Dates did not match between BATONZ messages and logs
- Explanations changed depending on the staff member
- Basic factual elements were contradicted
- The “final decision” changed multiple times
At one point, BATONZ claimed:
“There was no rejection at all.”
—but this directly contradicted their earlier message stating:
“We have declined the buyer.”
These contradictions could not be explained as simple human error.
8. Summary of Irregularities Identified
Based on emails, phone logs, and screenshots, the following irregularities were confirmed:
- A buyer was declined without our knowledge
- The official reason changed multiple times
- Explanations given to the buyer and us were inconsistent
- BATONZ refused to disclose internal logs
- Some explanations contradict documented facts
- No staff member took responsibility
These create a pattern that is difficult to attribute to mere administrative mistakes.
9. AI Analysis — Structural Pattern Suggesting Coordinated Interference
Based on the documented timeline, email patterns, contradictory explanations, and the buyer’s preserved messages, AI analysis indicates that the events cannot easily be explained by ordinary human error.
Key reasons include:
- The contradiction between what BATONZ told us and what they told the buyer
- Rejection being processed without the seller’s consent
- Multiple, mutually incompatible explanations offered by different staff
- Lack of transparency regarding internal decision-making
- Other anomalies in communication across multiple dates
The consistency of these anomalies suggests:
“a coordinated pattern of interference rather than isolated accidents.”
While this does not prove intent, the probability of these events occurring coincidentally is extremely low.
10. Possible Motives — Why Would Interference Occur?
Several factors may have contributed to interference in our business succession:
- Our family’s ongoing investigation into my father's medical accident and suspicious death
- Repeated obstruction in other areas of life (marriage, media outreach, legal consultation)
- Consistent patterns of suppression across unrelated domains
While the exact motive is unknown, the overlap in behavioral patterns across different institutions suggests a possibility of:
external pressure or influence exerted on BATONZ.
Further independent investigation is needed to clarify the cause.
11. Impact on Our Family and Business
The unexplained rejection of a serious buyer delayed the succession process and caused significant stress for our family. For a small business preparing for transition, such delays can be costly and—in some cases—fatal to the viability of the business.
Clear, transparent communication is critical in business succession, and BATONZ’s irregular handling of this case created unnecessary risk.
12. Message to Readers — Need for Transparency in Business Succession
Business succession is an important step for many families and small businesses. Interference, miscommunication, or unauthorized decisions—whether intentional or not— can cause serious financial and emotional harm.
If you have experienced similar issues with BATONZ or other agencies, we encourage you to document everything carefully and consider seeking independent confirmation.
We also welcome contact from journalists, investigators, and experts interested in examining this case further.