Dear Serious Fraud Office,
It now appears Deutsche Bank are part of a money laundering cartel, the cartel having illegally moved some £65 billion from Russian to London, and includes HSBC, RBS, UBS and Barclays.
As you know, in request 9559 from Jon Thompson of HMRC the SFO were informed Deutsche Bank had most certainly destroyed OTC bullion receipts, and this constitutes an Anti-Money-Laundering control violation. The destruction of receipts would be to cover up liabilities for gold and silver rigging, for which it recently settled, incriminated co-defendants, and for which traders have pleaded guilty in Chicago, USA.
The SFO and the FCA were furnished with proof that Deutsche Bank's bullion audits were fallacious back in 2014. http://www.shyreman.com/docs/MPs/fca.tre... and did not report the frauds to Parliament.
The SFO refused the application 9559. I would like to know who at the SFO is most responsible for that decision. I believe it would be the Attorney General Jeremy Wright, who was informed of the decision multiple times without comment. Bob Neil, chairman of the Justice Select Committee explicitly refused to scrutinize the SFO's conduct in these matters.
To re-iterate: who at the SFO is most responsible for refusing request 9559 to investigate Deutsche Bank for fraudulently destroying its OTC bullion receipts.
Dear Mr Taylor,
Thank you for contacting the Serious Fraud Office.
We aim to reply to all correspondence, including Freedom of Information requests or complaints, within 20 working days. If there is likely to be any delay, we will let you know.
More information about the Serious Fraud Office is available on our website at www.sfo.gov.uk.
Dear Information Officer,
The lack of response makes it look as if SFO is directly colluding with Deutsche Bank et al to rig markets. If so, does anyone stand to have a fair trial in which SFO are working for the prosecution?
Dear Mr Taylor,
Thank you for your emails of 13 June and 1 July 2017 to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) requesting, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the name of the person at the SFO who closed the investigation against Deutsche Bank for money laundering.
I can neither confirm nor deny whether the information you have requested is held by the SFO. This should not be taken as an indication that the information is, or is not, held.
The duty to confirm or deny in section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA does not arise in relation to the information you have requested because of the exemptions set out at section 30(3) of the Act.
Section 30(3) sets out that:
The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1) or (2).
Section 30(1)(a)-(b) provides that:
Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of—
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained—
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,
(b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.
Section 30(2)(a) – (b) provides that:
Information held by a public authority is exempt information if—
(a) it was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purposes of its functions relating to—
(i) investigations falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b),
(ii) criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct,
(b) it relates to the obtaining of information from confidential sources.
How the exemption is engaged:
The requested information would, if held, be held for the purposes set out in s30(1) or (2) of the Act.
The public interest test
Section 30(3) is a qualified exemption and requires consideration of whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in disclosing whether the public authority holds the information.
It is recognised that there is a general public interest in publicising the work of the SFO, so that the public knows that serious fraud, bribery and corruption are being investigated and prosecuted effectively, and so that the public can be reassured about the general conduct of our organisation and how public money is spent. The SFO takes steps to meet this interest by publishing casework information on its website where appropriate.
However, it is also recognised that it is in the public interest to safeguard the investigatory process and that investigating bodies should be afforded the space to determine the course of an investigation. In most cases releasing information about what is held or not held by law enforcement bodies would be detrimental to that process.
To confirm or deny information on the handling of any referral not publicly announced would undermine the confidentiality of referrals which have been made to the SFO. In addition, it would risk the release of potentially sensitive details of the handling of referrals which could prejudice the SFO’s conduct of future criminal investigations. This is clearly not in the public interest as the right of access to information should not undermine the investigation and prosecution of serious criminal allegations.
Additionally, as a general point, disclosing personal data such as the names of individuals, for example those involved in making decisions about casework, would in most cases be exempt from disclosure under section 40 of FOIA.
Having considered the opposing arguments, I am of the view that the benefits of confirming whether or not the information is held are outweighed by the disbenefits and thus the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held.
More information about exemptions in general and the public interest test is available on the ICO’s website at www.ico.org.uk.
If you are not content with my reply, you may ask for a review. You must do this by writing to me within two months of the date of this email. It would help us with the review if you could tell us which aspects of my reply concern you and why you are dissatisfied. Please quote reference FOI2016-068 in any future correspondence.
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review, you may apply direct to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner will not usually consider a case unless you have exhausted the internal review procedure. Her address is The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Serious Fraud Office
Dear Information Officer,
Given that Deutsche Bank incriminates co-defendants HSBC, UBS, Societé Generale, Barclays and Scotiabank for gold rigging, the public wants to know why the SFO or the FCA have not acted.
Again to remind you defendants DB, UBS and HSBC denied gold rigging in B40BM021 in the Birmingham Mercantile Court. Emma Slatters defence is thus perjury and a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice:
I report the perjury to the police - they are not interested. JACO / Lord Chief Justice / Lord Chancellor - no reply. The Attorney General - stonewalling.
Investigation #9559 was to assess whether Deutsche Bank have destroyed bullion trading receipts. Given they have rigged the market and refused to provide my receipts in a court of law, without protest from other defendants, the possibility that they destroyed them is very real. They were challenged to provide them to the Court of Appeal to discredit the allegation - they stonewalled, and the judges let them get away with non-admission. Ordinarily non-admission is treated as admission in civil litigation - one is not meant to plead the 5th and expect to win.
Clearly, had they been forced to testify under cross-examination in their own hearing, they could not have justified why they told me their audits were over while telling everyone else, via Reuters, audits were ongoing. We now know, from the New York & Chicago disclosures that the audits would have identified spoof trading and 'Taking out the Filth' naked short suppression of prices.
Defendants could not afford to testify, and the judge let them get away with non-attendance, bare denial and not having to file evidence that they were legally obliged to file.
Judge Ian Burnett is on record for having filed counter-factual court orders:
'Allegations of precious metal rigging are totally without merit' - WHY IS HE STILL A JUDGE?
He dismissed allegations of misconduct without a transcript of hearing, as confirmed by the ICO.
Lord Chief Justice Baron Thomas violated the Data Protection Act five times to keep that a secret.
So basically you have a cabal of bent lawyers, bent judges, bent banks, a bent Attorney General and bent regulators conspiring to keep judicial misconduct, fraud and perjury a secret.
The SFO prosecutes people regularly, but it does not tell the juries that it allowed greater frauds to go on. You can see how that undermines the authority of the SFO?
The SFO return my emails electronically unread - even though I presented it with materials that allowed it to establish the banking cartel's gold rigging back in 2014.
There is every reason to believe the heads of the SFO are involved in frauds. Either they ordered the investigation to stop, or the Attorney General did, and the AG seems to be denying any involvement in FOIA sent to his office. That leaves the SFO exec doesn't it?
Since the SFO block my email, I would ask you post this to the executive.
Does the SFO still maintain that allegations of precious metal rigging are vexatious? The judiciary do.