How are my three cases progressing?

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to enquire how my three cases are progressing. It says
on your website: "Whether a case should be accepted is normally
decided within 1 month of it being referred to the SFO." But my
cases are still being "reviewed" after more than six months.

I telephoned the SFO on 20 7239 7388 this morning and spoke to
Stacy. She said she would make enquiries and ring back, but did not
do so. I completed Referral Forms for these cases, which I sent on
14 April by email. This was acknowledged by Jonathan Wong of your
Referral Evaluation Team on 15 April. The dates of these cases are
26 January 2009, 28 February 3009, 17 March 2007, from your email
of 17 March. I am particularly interested in the third case.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wynn

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have not had a response to my email of 12th October to
reportingafraud about my first case.

The report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman about Equitable Life
says:

"It follows that the treaty did not constitute reinsurance and
therefore could not be taken into account in determining the
Society’s long term liabilities."

So there seem to be two questions: 1) Was "the reinsurance treaty"
fraudulent? 2) If it was fraudulent, was taking it "into account in
determining the Society’s long term liabilities" a crime?

I would be grateful for your reply. I asked about the reinsurance
treaty in January, with reference to the report of the
Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wynn.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have not had a response to my FoI request within 20 working days
as required by law. But it is possible that this was not a FoI
request, because such requests have to be for written information.
I therefore ask for all written information you have about my cases
which is not already public. You may not have any written
information about my last two cases. But you must have written
information about the Equitable Life collapse.

I therefore ask for all written information you have about the
Equitable Life collapse, which is not already public, especially
anything about the reinsurance treaty and written by the SFO.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Wynn

SFO Reference 2009-98

Dear Ms Gildersleeves,

Thank you for your email of 3rd November. I look forward to the
response of the SFO by 30 November 2009.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Wynn.

SFO Reference 2009-98

Dear Ms Squires,

Thank you for your email of 30th November. Please pass this on to
the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Serious Fraud
Office's handling of my FOI request 'How are my three cases
progressing?'.

You say my Freedom of Information request is for information:

"held for the purposes of an investigation into serious or complex
fraud which the SFO has duty to conduct with a view to it being
ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence or a
person charged with an offence is guilty of it."

But the SFO did not do such an investigation. The SFO said in 2005:

"The Serious Fraud Office confirms that nothing has emerged which
would justify a full criminal ivestigation in to the affairs of the
Equitable Life Assurance Society."

So how can there be?

"information which if disclosed would be likely to prejudice the
prevention/detection of crime, the apprehension/prosecution of
offenders and the administration of justice"

Unless further information has come to light since 2005? In which
case there should now be an investigation.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/how_are_m...

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Wynn

SFO Reference 2009-98

Dear SQUIRES Kay,

Following my e-mail yesterday, please could you say how long the
internal review will take.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wynn

SFO Reference 2009-98

Dear Ms Gildersleeves,

How long will this internal take? It is now over 20 working days
since your email of 5th January.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wynn

Dear Ms Gildersleeves,

Thank you for your email yesterday. I do not wish to see
information which is already in the public domain. However a
document might contain a mixture of information which is and is not
in the public domain, in which case I would like to see the
document.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wynn

Dear Ms Gildersleeves,

I would like to clarify my last email of 22nd September. By
"information" I mean text. I do not wish to receive for example
copies of press cuttings about Equitable Life from the SFO. But
would like to receive other text relating to Equitable Life which
has not been published.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Wynn