Does the Attorney General know if Deutsche Bank has destroyed its OTC bullion trading receipts

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Attorney General’s Office should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Attorney General’s Office,
In SFO investigation #9559, submitted by Jon Thomson, Chief of HMRC, Deutsche Bank were accused of destroying bullion trading receipts. If so, this is a serious violation of Anti-Money-Laundering control laws, because bullion is known to be used by ISIS to trade between munitions and oil in the Middle East. The investigation appears have been quashed by the office of the Attorney General. In the lawsuit B40BM021 the bank was challenged to disclose the claimant's bullion trading receipts to its co-defendants. It refused multiple times, contrary to normal procedure, without explanation. It was legally challenged to deny destroying receipts in the appeal documents submitted to the Court of Appeal, and refused to respond.

1) Did the Attorney General terminate the investigation #9559, or was that the decision of the current head of the SFO? Does the Attorney General still believe that was the correct action?

2) With the FCA having fined Deutsche Bank $630 million for destroying materials to cover up money laundering liabilities does the Attorney General know if such materials included Over-the-Counter bullion receipts?

3) Did the Attorney General's office receive an application from HSBC to serve a restraining order against the claimant for B40BM021 to prevent the claimant suing HSBC and Deutsche Bank and others for silver price manipulation?

4) Does the Attorney General's office have a copy of the restraining order for (3) in which the applicant is HSBC, the application date is 23 December 2014, yet the order is competed by Judge Simon Brown QC in July 2015 in which the judge claimed it arose out of his own volition.

5) If the answer to (4) is yes, then does the Attorney General recognise that Simon Brown's statement in that form contradicts the fact that the application was submitted by HSBC before lawsuit B40BM021 has been assigned to the Birmingham Mercantile Courts.

6) If the answer to (4) is yes, then does the Attorney General recognise that the restraining order helped HSBC evade legal redress for silver price manipulation, for which it has been incriminated by Deutsche Bank as cartel manipulations: London Silver Fixing Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, 1:14-md-02573 U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

7) Does the Attorney General know why Judge Simon Brown QC retired ten years early, a retirement announced within a week that LCJ Baron Thomas was notified that Deutsche Bank had confessed to gold rigging, when Simon Brown QC had dismissed such allegations as 'totally without merit' and 'vexatious' in the July 2015 hearing for B40BM021.

8) In the July 2015 oral hearing B40BM021 under Simon Brown QC, Anshu Jain and Emma Slatter, Co-CEO of Deutsche Bank and General Counsel of Deutsche Bank respectively, refused to turn up for court, even though they were the applicants. Given that Deutsche Bank has now incriminated itself for all the matters alleged in B40BM021, does the Attorney General intend to prosecute either Jain or Slatter for fraud or perjury?

9) If (4) is true, which individual at HSBC submitted the application in HSBC's name to the office of the Attorney General?

10) Does the Attorney General believe in the integrity of the judiciary given Lord Charles Haddon-Cave and Lord Ian Burnett of the Court of Appeal, have both signed court orders dismissing allegations of gold and silver rigging against Deutsche Bank as 'totally without merit.' for appeal applications to B40BM021.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Taylor

AGO Correspondence, Attorney General’s Office

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Taylor,

 

Thank you for your FOI request to the Attorney General's Office (AGO). 

 

The AGO will respond to your request within the deadline requirement of
the FOIA legislation.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Gabriella Guymer-Davies

 

FOI Officer

Attorney General’s Office

5-8 The Sanctuary

London, SW1P 3JS

[1]www.gov.uk/ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Gabriella Guymer-Davies,

Does the Attorney General have any intention of answering basic questions? It has come to my attention that UBS is now incriminated for money laundering $10 billion in France.

So that is three principle defendants in lawsuit B40BM021, Deutsche Bank, UBS and HSBC, all incriminated or guilty for significant money laundering, and colluding together to protect Deutsche Bank from scrutiny...and the Attorney General sees fit to close SFO investigation #9559 against it.

Also a silver manipulation lawsuit against JP Morgan has been re-opened: Wacker et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 16-2482, 16-2484, 16-2530 - JP Morgan was yet another defendant in my lawsuit who saw no issue with Deutsche Bank executive Anshu Jain refusing to turn up for this own oral hearing to deny rigging the market in which JPM traded and saw no issue with DB refusing to supply any evidence to show that its audits were authentic

Judge Haddon-Cave and Judge Ian Burnett are on record for having dismissed allegations of silver rigging against Deutsche Bank as 'totally without merit.' A copy of their court orders are on my website. It should be clear to your office with DB's settlement and incriminating documents against UBS and HSBC that demonstrate the market manipulation algorithm I had alleged was used, that both judges have been bribed, and LCJ Baron Thomas, and Paul Kernaghan of JACO should have been forced to resign months ago. It was not enough that Judge Simon Brown QC lost his job in May 2016 - his court order should have been struck out on that day and HSBC executives prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

It is patent that when Attorney General Jeremy Wright stood as counsel for Gina Miller's lawsuit, that he was facing the most senior judge, Baron Thomas, who he knew had covered up Deutsche Bank's perjury just a few months before hand. I know that he, Sales, Etherton and Neuberger, all knew that Miller's principle business partner is Deutsche Bank. I have mail from Etherton to prove it.

You do understand that *misconduct in pubic office* can merit a life sentence?

Yours sincerely,

Mark Taylor

AGO Correspondence, Attorney General’s Office

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Taylor

 

Please find attached the FOI response from the Attorney General's Office
to your recent FOI request.

 

Kind regards

 

 

[1]cid:image003.png@01D28C4E.E426EE20

 

FOI Officer

[2][Attorney General’s Office request email]

020 7271 2492

Attorney General’s Office

5-8 The Sanctuary

London

SW1P 3JS

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Craig Hollands,

I have presented you with questions to answer some basic facts in response to a blatant cover-up of judicial misconduct which in turn was used to hide Deutsche Bank's gold rigging, its money laundering and perjury. The cartel includes UBS and HSBC.

I presented you enough information that the Attorney General's office should have referred this to the Crown Prosecution Service of its own volition. The crime was not just against me - gold rigging frauds affect everyone who has sold bullion in the past 18 years - the years for which Deutsche Bank admitted it had been suppressing the prices of precious metals. Deutsche Bank's money laundering also cost the Treasury $2 billion in lost revenue, since no tax was paid be the recipients.

We can take it that the Attorney General is responsible for dropping SFO investigation #9559, and thus conspired to cover up an ongoing fraud. Is this denied? The Attorney General as head of the SFO in Parliament has responsibility for reviewing its decisions and he chose not to do so. it is patent if he had told the CPS to do its job, then HSBC executives would have faced charges for a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. HSBC Swiss Bank account holders have funded both the Conservative party and the Labour party. It is obvious he has been effectively bribed to violate the duties of his office.

As I said in my previous correspondence Gina Miller's principle business in SCM, which is partnered with Deutsche Bank. SCM Direct is in financial trouble - if Deutsche Bank suffers too much financial distress her business folds. Given Jeremy Wright was responsible for cancelling #9559 there can be no question she was a position to blackmail him. You have enough information to hand to confirm that for yourself. Likewise he knew Baron Thomas, who had violated the Data Protection Act to cover up Deutsche Bank's frauds, was not fit to judge Gina Miller's claim, and should have recused himself.

I think we can both agree that Jeremy Wright is in no position to deny any of these allegations.

From your obstructive replies and negligence in forwarding on these issues to the Crown Prosecution Service, we ca deduce you have been told to cover-up the fraud, thus conspire to commit the fraud, in return for your continued employment - i.e you were bribed.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Taylor

AGO Correspondence, Attorney General’s Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Taylor

 

The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has noted your comments; and the
alteration you made to the subject reference.  You have not explicitly
requested in your email that the AGO perform an internal review of our
response to your FOI request.  Do you wish the AGO to conduct an internal
review?

 

Kind regards

 

 

[1]cid:image003.png@01D28C4E.E426EE20

 

Foi Officer

[2][Attorney General’s Office request email]

020 7271 2492

Attorney General’s Office

5-8 The Sanctuary

London

SW1P 3JS

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear anonymous FOI officer,

It appears Jeremy Wright, rather than investigate Deutsche Bank, has quashed the investigations - and you are telling me the AG has no record that #9559 was quashed by the AG. The AG is Parliament's head of the SFO, the authority who ordered #9559 should thus be under your jurisdiction. Is it the case then the SFO quashed the investigation and the AG did not see fit to ask them why? May I remind you that I disclosed materials to the Treasury Committee and the Justice Select Committee that showed the SFO and the FCA knew that Deutsche Bank was rigging gold in 2014.

http://www.shyreman.com/docs/MPs/fca.tre...

You should keep a record for yourself, so that if any third party asks if the AG has any records that the SFO or FCA acted corruptly, then you can respond with that document.

The AG's office is responsible for Parliamentary oversight of the SFO and the CPS. Given that Emma Slatter's testimony in B40BM021, that Deutsche Bank's gold trading audits were genuine, and given that I have supplied documents showing that they could not have been genuine, and given that Deutsche Bank has settled $90 million for the same allegations and incriminated UBS and HSBC your office should have been asking the courts and the CPS why the hell Slatter, Jain and Deutsche Bank were not prosecuted for perjury, or conspiracy to commit fraud or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The AG should have asked Paul Kernaghan why he is on record for having said 'he could not believe Deutsche Bank would launder money' - after DB was fined by BaFin and FCA for laundering money from Russia to London - $10 billion.

It appears Jeremy Wright, rather than investigate Deutsche Bank, has quashed the investigations - and you are telling me the AG has no record that #9559 was quashed by the AG. The AG is Parliament's head of the SFO, the authority who ordered #9559 should thus be under your jurisdiction.

Let me remind you of the key evidence B40BM021, evidence that iwas the responsibility of the defence to file, and evidence that they did not file, as reported by the judge - in the *verdict.*

http://www.shyreman.com/docs/claim.bundl...

I presume the AG and the CPS have no intent in verifying whether Deutsche Bank had destroyed gold trading receipts just as it had no intent in identifying whether it's Russian operations were laundering money to London.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Taylor

Dear AGO Correspondence,

In your response you said that you noted the comments I made. One of these was that the AG's office, in its responsibilities, should have made an effort to bring a prosecution against defendants in B40BM021 for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. These lies are crucial to the cartel with its ongoing frauds. So if the AG did his duty, and protected the interests of British investors, he should have taken the matters to the CPS directly.
I have notified the police but it appears the prosecution has been blocked at a high level, and nobody will put their name to an explanation or to an authority, I presume that authority would be the AG again. So there is every reason to believe that while your office advises me to pursue matters with the CPS, it says so at the same it blocks the CPS. Just as it would tell me to consult legal advice, while at the same time having every intent to ignore the Law.
The AG's name appears on many criminal prosecutions, some for fraud and perjury. I am sure defendants in these cases have a right to know whether the prosecuting offices conspires to commit crimes more serous than those it prosecutes itself. You can understand, can you not, that this undermines the rule of Law.
As an example, Tom Hayes was jailed by Baron Thomas for ten years or so for Libor manipulation. Baron Thomas has incriminated himself for covering up the banking cartel's gold manipulation. Since Hayes was only guilty of a few particular instances of manipulation, while Thomas has covered up the entire class of fraud, it should be obvious to you that Thomas is the greater fraudster and an injustice has been done. Did the AG help, in any way, to bring about Hayes' conviction?
The AG may argue that it is in the public interest to cover-up gold rigging. Since both the Conservatives and Labour have received millions of pounds of donations from HSBC, by one route or another, and HSBC is incriminated for gold rigging - it would be a case of 'he would say that wouldn't he.'
I believe in the next few months we will see a flood of claims against the banks. I do hope he understands that now is the time to stand down.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Taylor

AGO Correspondence, Attorney General’s Office

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Taylor,

 

Please see the attached response to your request for an internal review.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Gabriella Guymer-Davies

 

FOI Officer

Attorney General’s Office

5-8 The Sanctuary

London, SW1P 3JS

[1]www.gov.uk/ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Gabriella Guymer-Davies,

The fact is Jeremy Wright MP - the Attorney General, has responsibility for oversight of the operations of the SFO, who quashed an investigation into Deutsche Bank for gold rigging and money laundering. DB incriminated itself in New York in May 2016 under Judge Caproni. This month a trader in Chicago, David Llew confessed and incriminated DB and other banks for hundreds of spoofing attacks on the COMEX to manipulate the price of precious metals. There can be no question Deutsche Bank's audits were faked, as spoofing attacks would be recorded in Deutsche Bank's log files as trading orders followed by cancellations within milliseconds or microseconds. This is exactly what audits would look for, if they were genuine.

Deutsche Bank are on record (via Emma Slatter's defence in B40BM021 in the Birmingham Mercantile Court) as having denied rigging its bullion audits and issued a bare denial to the allegation of systematic suppression of prices. HSBC, UBS and Barclays are co-defendants in B40BM021 that are also co-defendants in the New York lawsuit, all incriminated by Deutsche Bank for systematic price suppression.

There is no question that all these defendants conspired to hide Deutsche Bank's fake audits from the courts. There is no question that neither the SFO, the FCA, the AG or the Court of Appeal give a damn that Deutsche Bank and its cartel lied to everyone to get away with fraud.

You should ask Jeremy Wright directly why he has not referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the SFO. I have sent him, the Treasury Committee and the Justice Committee a paper trail that shows the SFO and the FCA knew about the gold rigging in 2014. The SFO now return my emails electronically.

So if AG J Wright had done his job he would not have only brought the misfeasance of the SFO to Parliament, which has done nothing to investigate Deutsche Bank, but he would have referred DB to the public prosecutor himself for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and conspiracy to commit fraud in my lawsuit.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Taylor

AGO Correspondence, Attorney General’s Office

Thank you for contacting the Attorney General’s Office (AGO).

Please note the Attorney General provides legal advice to the government and is unable to give legal advice, assistance or support to individuals. The Attorney General does not have investigatory powers.

We strive to answer all correspondence that falls within the remit of the AGO within 20 days. However, we are unable to reply to matters that do not fall within the responsibility of the department.

If your correspondence is in relation to:

· Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) matters or complaints – please contact the CPS: http://www.cps.gov.uk/ or refer to the CPS complaints procedure: http://www.cps.gov.uk/contact/feedback_a...
· Courts or judges – please contact the Ministry of Justice: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
· Police – please contact the Home Office: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

You may wish to redirect your correspondence to another department that has responsibility for the issue you have raised.

More information about the role of the AGO can be found at our website: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati....

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org