Insolvency Act criminal offences & the cover up

Insolvency Act criminal offences & the cover up

Op Blackjack’ – Insolvency Act 1986 criminal offences by liquidator and the criminal cover up by The 21 Cards of Injustice, Dean Beale, Inspector General and Chief Executive Officer of the Insolvency Service and his Legal Services Directorate.

In our launch release, we documented City of London Police living up to their standards earning the City the international reputation as the economic crime capital of the world.

Operation Blackjack - Dean Beane of the Insolvency Service
Dean Beale Inspector General and Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service and right Katy Shrimplin counsel and the former director and head of Beales legal services directorate who covered up offending by the Official Receiver
Insolvency Act criminal offences:

Sir Geoffrey Vos, now head of civil justice for England and Wales, is lying to conceal fraud and criminality by a corrupt public official.

In our launch release we showed how City of London Police relied on the perversions by Sir Geoffrey Vos to continue in their quest to conceal the conspiracy by 21 Cards of Injustice, 21-double dealing judges.

This one’s a straight flush. A suit of cards of all the same pack. They broke not only the civil rules of the game, making up for the deficit by those at the bottom of the Championship League, with outright cheating, but they made themselves above the criminal law the same.

OPERATION BLACKJACK

Insolvency Act criminal offence concealed by the Insolvency Service, bent lawyers, police * judges.

Getting to their game, the Supreme Court’s final judgment in the case of Ivy v Genting Casinos established the new test for dishonesty in civil and criminal proceedings. Cheating is dishonest.

Misdealing” is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as to “make a mistake when dealing cards“, or dealing wrongly / incorrectly. How ironic?

Failing to administer the law, is a mistake when dealing, but this was no mistake, they were all double dealing.

Vos was one of the double dealers, therefore he knew what he was doing in concealing material facts and perverting the truth, was absolutely dishonest, and, being in his position, he must have known it also had tendency to pervert.

It was easy to prove the lies by the second highest judge in the UK. They may be full of deceit, but they are hopeless criminals. Good criminals don’t create a trail of evidence behind them.

No evidence” claimed Vos, but we found all the evidence that was right before him.

Evidence proving offences by the Official Receiver of London, has always been a matter of open public record.

It wasn’t just Vos and his cabal of referees turned strikers for Tory Boro, police, and all ministerial departments stonewalling to cover the crimes. It was the duty of Dean Beale, Inspector General to have reported the offences he knew about, to his legal services directorate for prosecution.

Beale, like the rest of them and his legal department, all relied on the 21 Cards of Injustice to cover up. The truth was easily in reach.

They did the public purse out of at least £100,000 in fines through their cover up and perversion, whilst you, the taxpayer are paying them to act dishonestly.

Judges can only occupy office whilst on good behaviour.

Para. 54 of the judgment by Sir Geoffrey Vos dated February 2019.

So, it was finally determined by Vos that Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, was acting as liquidator of Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI“).

EEI, TEAM WIND’s investment vehicle had a claim arising from pre-liquidation mutual dealings against MFC / TEAM BLACKMAIL exceeding £1 million including statutory interest, on the same date!

The claim that Hannon was under a duty to have collected in, was based on the assignment from EW to EEI, which he was lying about. Vos covered up Hannon’s lies when he recorded that Hannon said in a letter to Court of 15 May 2018 that “no such claim was assigned under the alleged assignment, or at all“.

The simple illustrated 52-second video contains snippets from the official transcript of a High Court hearing on 5 February 2018, proves that 3-months prior, both the barrister for MFC and a High Court Judge were saying that the EEI statutory demand sum was the investment assigned from EW to EEI.

Over a year later, in court on 6 November 2020, evident on the official transcript, Mr Justice Fancourt (No. 10 of 21) and Dov Ohrenstein, the fraudster barrister acting for TEAM BLACKMAIL who replaced Staunton after his lies caught up with him, said this about the assignment of the investment from EW to EEI:

OPERATION BLACKJACK

Page 14 of the 81-page official hearing transcript dated 6 November 2020.
Page 14 of the 81 page official hearing transcript of 6 November 2020
Pages 17 18 of the 81 page official hearing transcript of 6 November 2020

It was finally determined that the assignment originating the claim vested in EEI of over £1 million, which was then assigned back to Millinder personally, was never determined at all.

It once again proved that Hannon had committed perjury in his letter to Court, a lie told both with intent to defraud and pervert.

Vos knew by his own admission that both EEI and EW had claims arising through pre-liquidation mutual dealings, and that Hannon was misdealing by failing in his duty to administer rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, the law on set off.

Uncoincidentally, this is the same fraudulent abuse that gave cause for Millinder to make his originating application against Hannon in relation to the wind turbine operating company (Empowering Wind MFC Ltd / “EW“).

That was misdealing in relation to both companies which Vos lied about, and yet there was not a whisper, not a single reference to the law on insolvency set off anywhere in any of the purported determinations in the Millinder case. That’s the ace card, the fraud that lies at the heart of it.

The Insolvency Act 1986 creates a number of criminal offences when a person does, or fails to do certain acts which are prescribed within the statutory law.

Section 109 of the Insolvency Act 1986 The summary criminal offence committed when a liquidator fails to notify of his appointment in the London Gazette.

The offence is complete, if, within 14-days after his appointment, the liquidator fails to publish in the London Gazette Official Public Register, and deliver to Companies House, a statutory notice of his appointment.

Evidence to prove the offence

There were two simple places we would get the evidence, as prescribed by the law which creates those offences. Firstly, the London Gazette, and secondly, the Companies House public record for EEI. Both of which, any member of the public can access.

We did the same in respect of EW to compare, just looking at the London Gazette public record, here’s the result:

'Op Blackjack' - Evidence in the public domain to prove that the Official Receiver of London has committed criminal offences that Vos and City of London Police lied about, to prevent justice being served on him. 

It's called perverting.

The London Gazette notice history for EEI shows that Hannon did not advertise notice of his appointment as liquidator. The evidence proves that Hannon was not even lawfully appointed, Mr Dionne was.

By way of comparison, Hannon was acting a liquidator of EW when he fraudulently failed in his fiduciary duty to have administered the mandatory law of due process in rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, because TEAM BLACKMAIL, never had a claim against TEAM WIND, and TEAM WIND had a claim against TEAM BLACKMAIL for over £10 million, originating because of their BLACKMAIL.

Is that not misdealing, conspiracy and fraud?

Below, we show you the evidence that Mr Hannon did, at lease advertise notice of his appointment as liquidator of EW:

'Op Blackjack' - Evidence in the public domain to prove that the Official Receiver of London has committed criminal offences that Vos and City of London Police lied about, to prevent justice being served on him. 

It's called perverting.
The London Gazette notice history for EW shows that Hannon was appointed as liquidator of EW

It is proven beyond doubt, to the criminal standard, with evidence, that Hannon has committed a criminal offence which crossed over with his fraudulent abuse of position, acting to deprive Millinder, EW and EEI of a statutory right of which they were entitled.

Mr Dionne, the elusive public official, a senior figure in the Insolvency Service, never appeared at all in the EEI liquidation, yet he was the one lawfully appointed.

Mr Dionne has committed 4 of those offences on multiple counts, (aside from failing to notify his appointment), in respect of EEI. Hannon has, in respect of both companies.

Beale and his legal services cabal have been covering up those offences to prevent justice being served on the offenders. That is, for avoidance of doubt, perverting the course of public justice.

Criminality is therefore easily established in Millinder’s case, aside from looking at the obvious fraud.

Schedule 10 of the Insolvency Act 1986 prescribes the punishment of offences committed under it. We list the fines from Schedule 10 of the Insolvency Act, the offences by a liquidator, which is the screen shot below:

'Operation Blackjack' - Schedule 10 of the Insolvency act 1986 - Punishment of offences committed by a liquidator
The Insolvency Act criminal offences committed by a liquidator when he fails to do certain things

We observe that the Official Receiver of London, deployed to double deal as liquidator of both TEAM WIND’s companies, had committed all of the 5 summary offences above on no less than 22 counts.

Not only that, but Hannon’s offending under the Insolvency Act 1986 crossed over with fraudulent abuse of position. Fraud is not a victimless crime.

The offence of section 109 of the Act is subject to a fine of a fifth of the statutory maximum.

From 12 March 2015, law removed the £5,000 cap that used to limit the maximum fines magistrates could impose.

On that basis, and given the aggravated nature of Hannon’s offending, it would be conservative considering the circumstances to assume a punishment of a £5,000 fine for that offence.

Hannon failed to have remedied his violation and on 16 July 2019 Hannon dissolved EEI to defraud Millinder, a creditor he owes a fiduciary duty of over £1 million.

The daily default fine is a fiftieth of the statutory maximum, which, prior to March 2015 was £5,000, so the daily default fine for the continued contravention is £100, applying 14-days from making the insolvency order against EEI on 28 March 2018 through to when he dissolved EEI acting outside jurisdiction to defraud its creditors.

The daily default fine accrues therefore from 11 April 2018 – 16 July 2019, so, 469 days. The fine Hannon has evaded is £51,900.

At paragraph 105 of his 8 February 2019 judgment, Vos told another lie:

Operation Blackjack - Paragraph 105 of the judgment by the Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Geoffrey Vos, on 8 February 2019.
More lies Paragraph 105 of the Chancellor of the High Courts judgment on 8 February 2019

Vos told a lie because he knew that on 9 January 2017, in Court as recorded on the official transcript, Staunton, for TEAM BLACKMAIL, had to concede by stating “for the purpose of the Energy Supply Agreement, force majeure has effect“.

It is evident therefore that counsel for Boro / TEAM BLACKMAIL, knew on 9 January 2017 that £181,269.89 of the first claim was fictitious, but yet he attended Court then claiming over £4 million for energy supply, from November 2017 onwards.

£181,269.89 of the BLACKMAIL was for energy supply. £75,000 was for rent, and Vos knew that on 9 January 2017, Staunton also lied about force majeure in the lease, because no rent was owed either.

Contrary to the false assertions by Vos, Millinder did not need to bring any claims, because rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, the mandatory law of due process, determined that TEAM BLACKMAIL’s claim was to have been set off entirely against TEAM WIND’s claim, which as of 19 August 2015 when it became due and payable, was over £9.2 million net!

Vos lied and said it was a “quantified claim for rent” knowing that £181,269.89 of it was an invoice for energy supply when there was no agreement to supply power, and that no rent was owed because force majeure had effect.

City of London Police based their decision not to investigate the serious offence of perverting the course of justice by 21 judges on the decisions by Vos, who we have proven to have seriously perverted the truth.

Broadly, the presumption is that the public interest requires prosecution where there has been a contravention of the criminal law.

Public integrity is essential for advancing the public good and ensuring the legitimacy of public organisations. It is also considered an antithesis to corruption, as recognised by articles 7 and 8 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

It is of paramount importance in the public interest that the rule of law is maintained and that means “an independent justice system, free from interference from outside, free from corruption, free from influence, that is respected and treated as independent by those in Government and those in Parliament, and that ultimately, the public has confidence in the ability of the courts and the responsibility of the courts to take decisions according to their best judgment about what the law of the land requires.”

Our question to you, after reading this, would you go and use the courts to seek justice in the UK after being wronged by any public official or anyone connected with one?

The 21 Cards of Injustice - Get it now

We have asked the Lord Chancellor, the Lady Chief Justice, Dean Beale and the Insolvency Service, City of London Police and Corporation, the Cabinet Office and Number 10 Downing Street, to comment.

Like, comment and share this article far and wide.

Help us to help you - share far and wide...

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!