The court found that the Plaintiff had proved, to the required standard, that he transmitted substantial sums to the 1st Defendant for the purchase of land, construction of a holiday home, and purchase of a motor vehicle, all based on fraudulent misrepresentations and forged documents provided by the 1st Defendant. The evidence, including bank statements, police investigations, and expert testimony, established that the documents relating to the land, motor vehicle, and supporting government approvals were forgeries. The Defendants failed to provide credible evidence to support their alternative explanations for the funds received. The court held that the predominant purpose of the transaction was the purchase and development of land, thus affirming its jurisdiction. The Plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the full amount sent, with interest and costs, as the 1st Defendant's conduct amounted to actionable fraud.