Peter Shakeshaft has been involved with 27 or more companies, most of which are dissolved. That's a bit of a clue about his skills as a "Business Entrepreneur", as he claims on his website.
Buying wine as an investment is like collecting farts for fresh air, it stinks and you'll have nothing to show for it. Investors (mugs) forget the salesman is on a high commission and you'll probably be conned into paying a lot of money for storage, 'cos you can't be filling your shed with XX boxes of booze.
A previous post claimed Vin-X had been to court, last week, and been awarded the value of the shares (sod all) and the return of the £20k from Billy Boy. So they must have had proof of their claim. They've lost big then, 'cos they could have put the money into the Post Office and made more and seen it again.
That post re Vin-X was a link to a piece by Thomas Maher stating that the Court had awarded 20% of the shares in REL to Vin-X. I have seen no other report of such a ruling.
Going over the submitted accounts of Vin-X and REL for the period when this 20% sale supposedly took place (sometime between late 2016 and end-2017), there is nothing that suggests a transaction, unless Vin-X was recording it as (possibly convertible) debt and REL was reporting it as equity. That in itself would be odd. Believe it or not, at this time REL was using an accounting firm that appears to be on the level and professional; there is no reason to believe that REL's accounts for this period were inaccurate.
If the above contradictory items were indicative of a transaction between REL and Vin-X, it apparently had a putative value of roughly £400k and in return for the 20% REL got no money. Rather, it supposedly got advice from the geniuses at Vin-X on how to run a drinks business. Given the apparent (small) scale of Vin-X, not to mention that the wine business is not the soft drinks business, the long-term investment business is not the consumer perishables business, and investing in other people's long-established products is totally different from starting one's own business from scratch, it is hard to see why Storey would have thought that the nominal value of what he was getting from Vin-X would be worth anything like either 20% of his company or £400k. If they had been giving him £400k cash, it might have been a different story, but they weren't.
The other thing is that, a year after the $400k (very roughly) change in REL's balance sheet that might have been evidence of share ownership by Vin-X, REL submitted a Confirmation Statement showing the shareholders.
Apart from Storey's 64% and a couple of tiny pieces, the other shareholders were Brandsellers with 12% and Charlie Simpson and Robert Lee each with 10%. If Simpson and Lee were Vin-X, the numbers would fit, but I see no evidence anywhere that those two names are connected to Vin-X. Also, the claim would have been made in their names, not in the name of Vin-X.
We have found no evidence anywhere of what "Brandsellers" is, and 12% is not 20%.
I don't know that the above gets us anywhere, but given the highly dubious history of some of the people behind Vin-X (as described in the article linked above), as usual nothing to do with Rich Energy Limited can be taken at face value.