A woman who lost her life savings in a real estate scheme broke down in tears as she recalled how she was “lied” to by her business partners.Dianne Laird told Supreme Court she thought she could trust Cedric Oates a friend, coach and guidance counsellor to invest the $345,000 she gave him as he’d promised.“It never crossed my mind [that he would do otherwise]. I never would have did it if I didn’t believe and trust him,” she said yesterday.Mr Oates, 41, has denied making a statement that he knew was false, misleading or deceptive, to induce the Canadian teacher to part with her money.Under cross-examination by defence lawyer Charles Richardson, Ms Laird said Mr Oates and his US business partner Michael Hopkins “gave nothing but excuses” whenever she asked about her money.Mr Richardson questioned whether she understood that “there’s a world of difference between getting your money and breaching the terms of an agreement”.Ms Laird replied: “I don’t know, they lied and they never showed me any proof.”Mr Richardson continued: “So if you don’t know what’s the jury to think?”Ms Laird said: “Cedric admitted that they bought properties with my money and rolled them over, but they didn’t give it back and that to me is stealing. It was not a business deal gone bad, definitely not.”The defence lawyer pressed Ms Laird as to why she handed over money without a promissory note.“I suggest to you that you would not have transferred your money without having your name listed on the paperwork,” said Mr Richardson.The witness replied: “Unfortunately, I did.”She denied that the whole deal was made on a verbal agreement in the absence of even “an informal written contract”.“That’s not true,” said Ms Laird.“But you accept that you paid up the first instalment of $25,000 without papers,” said Mr Richardson.The complainant replied: “That’s not true. I keep telling you Cedric promised me a quick return on my money.”Asked why she then paid out a further $100,000, Ms Laird said: “He assured me that two foreclosures would be brought and sold or flipped quickly.”She agreed however, that the second payment was made without any paperwork.She said as she fought back tears: “They both promised me good returns and that I would have my money back. Why do we keep going over this?”The teacher denied that she turned down $100,000 as partial repayment because she wanted all of her money back at once.“That’s 100 percent false. If someone offered me $100,000 you’re damn right I’d take it,” she stated.The case continues in Supreme Court before Acting Justice Charlene Scott.