Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Richard Slade Parasite Frauds Crime Reference: NFRC 130 600 273 105 12.06.13

    Uploaded by

    6ootl
    991 views45 pages
    This is the police report which Tom Cahill submitted to the Metropolitan Police who in turn sent to the NFIB (national Fraud Intelligence Bureau), which unfortunately are part of the City of London Police Masonic Fraud Protection Squad. The report is purely documents by Richard Slade cataloging his lying to his clients about the existence of witness statements and other evidence that can be used to attain some kind of successful action against his accomplice, Kulvir Singh Virk of SVS securities. It transpires following much wealth amassed due to this obvious fraud, that the alleged witness statements never existed in the first place. Any person with any understanding of the law, finance or accounting knows that the easiest and only way to prove fraud is to go to the court and demand to have documents pertaining to payments handed over for inspection. It's called discovery and it doesn't require a lengthy or expensive trial. The fact that he didn't do this and--as it transpires--didn't have any other, as lied evidence, marks the whole thing out clearly. Kulvir Singh Virk of SVS clearly orchestrated the entire scheme. No one knows who initially initiated the concept of the group action. Michael Nascimento was the only person who seemed to be soliciting for the business on behalf of Slade, claiming that he was the top man in fraud in the UK, which doesn't match Slade's CV at all. Micheal Nascimento was in the fraud gang and benefitted from it immesly; so much so as to enable him to set up his own fraud called Morgan Forbes afterwards. Clearly Richard Slade not only defrauded the victims of ALPonz with his criminal deceit; he did this on the instruction of Kulvir Virk, so as to lead the victims down the garden path. More disgustingly, Slade also kept mentioning asset freezing in the meetings with them, as per Virk and not the firms with the stolen money clearly linked to. This would have lead to the victims being set up to be counter sued and as them, as clients are responsible for actioning their adviser's suggestions, would stand to lose masses as Virk could rightly state that the case was bought by a totally spurius evidence of known reprobates, Glen King and Michael Nascimento, who knew his Morgan Forbes would eventually be closed down, so he'd be in a foreign jurisdiction and he would also be a disqualified director by the time. Hard to believe for some, but there's absolutely no other reason for the reliance on such poor witnesses when solid financial data could be sequestered for minimal outlay.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This is the police report which Tom Cahill submitted to the Metropolitan Police who in turn sent to the NFIB (national Fraud Intelligence Bureau), which unfortunately are part of the City of London Police Masonic Fraud Protection Squad. The report is purely documents by Richard Slade cataloging his lying to his clients about the existence of witness statements and other evidence that can be used to attain some kind of successful action against his accomplice, Kulvir Singh Virk of SVS securities. It transpires following much wealth amassed due to this obvious fraud, that the alleged witness statements never existed in the first place. Any person with any understanding of the law, finance or accounting knows that the easiest and only way to prove fraud is to go to the court and demand to have documents pertaining to payments handed over for inspection. It's called discovery and it doesn't require a lengthy or expensive trial. The fact that he didn't do this and--as it transpires--didn't have any other, as lied evidence, marks the whole thing out clearly. Kulvir Singh Virk of SVS clearly orchestrated the entire scheme. No one knows who initially initiated the concept of the group action. Michael Nascimento was the only person who seemed to be soliciting for the business on behalf of Slade, claiming that he was the top man in fraud in the UK, which doesn't match Slade's CV at all. Micheal Nascimento was in the fraud gang and benefitted from it immesly; so much so as to enable him to set up his own fraud called Morgan Forbes afterwards. Clearly Richard Slade not only defrauded the victims of ALPonz with his criminal deceit; he did this on the instruction of Kulvir Virk, so as to lead the victims down the garden path. More disgustingly, Slade also kept mentioning asset freezing in the meetings with them, as per Virk and not the firms with the stolen money clearly linked to. This would have lead to the victims being set up to be counter sued and as them, as clients are responsible for actioning their adviser's suggestions, would stand to lose masses as Virk could rightly state that the case was bought by a totally spurius evidence of known reprobates, Glen King and Michael Nascimento, who knew his Morgan Forbes would eventually be closed down, so he'd be in a foreign jurisdiction and he would also be a disqualified director by the time. Hard to believe for some, but there's absolutely no other reason for the reliance on such poor witnesses when solid financial data could be sequestered for minimal outlay.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    991 views45 pages

    Richard Slade Parasite Frauds Crime Reference: NFRC 130 600 273 105 12.06.13

    Uploaded by

    6ootl
    This is the police report which Tom Cahill submitted to the Metropolitan Police who in turn sent to the NFIB (national Fraud Intelligence Bureau), which unfortunately are part of the City of London Police Masonic Fraud Protection Squad. The report is purely documents by Richard Slade cataloging his lying to his clients about the existence of witness statements and other evidence that can be used to attain some kind of successful action against his accomplice, Kulvir Singh Virk of SVS securities. It transpires following much wealth amassed due to this obvious fraud, that the alleged witness statements never existed in the first place. Any person with any understanding of the law, finance or accounting knows that the easiest and only way to prove fraud is to go to the court and demand to have documents pertaining to payments handed over for inspection. It's called discovery and it doesn't require a lengthy or expensive trial. The fact that he didn't do this and--as it transpires--didn't have any other, as lied evidence, marks the whole thing out clearly. Kulvir Singh Virk of SVS clearly orchestrated the entire scheme. No one knows who initially initiated the concept of the group action. Michael Nascimento was the only person who seemed to be soliciting for the business on behalf of Slade, claiming that he was the top man in fraud in the UK, which doesn't match Slade's CV at all. Micheal Nascimento was in the fraud gang and benefitted from it immesly; so much so as to enable him to set up his own fraud called Morgan Forbes afterwards. Clearly Richard Slade not only defrauded the victims of ALPonz with his criminal deceit; he did this on the instruction of Kulvir Virk, so as to lead the victims down the garden path. More disgustingly, Slade also kept mentioning asset freezing in the meetings with them, as per Virk and not the firms with the stolen money clearly linked to. This would have lead to the victims being set up to be counter sued and as them, as clients are responsible for actioning their adviser's suggestions, would stand to lose masses as Virk could rightly state that the case was bought by a totally spurius evidence of known reprobates, Glen King and Michael Nascimento, who knew his Morgan Forbes would eventually be closed down, so he'd be in a foreign jurisdiction and he would also be a disqualified director by the time. Hard to believe for some, but there's absolutely no other reason for the reliance on such poor witnesses when solid financial data could be sequestered for minimal outlay.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 45

    C0iPA NJUMtSOe

    0?<J 2.J7 312 6S

    ~Z7z.

    nfc mjMimjs^ms

    ALPonz-.

    FAD, gj.c ce S//6//0 I^M^)l

    vm$tipkd.

    sfafa^J&d&j titick hU&sric&> weAisztd -f^m-iM

    foiv\

    fD

    Tom cpsvwl^

    pAUu ^j^

    RICHARD SjLAPE
    AND COMPANY

    ^-

    Mr Thomas Hanley

    16 Ballyroan Park Templeogue


    DUBLIN 16

    14 November 2011

    Our Ref: RJS


    YourRef:

    e-mail: richard.slade@richardslade.com

    Dear Mr Hanley

    Thank you for your letter of 26 October 2011. I apologise for my delayin replying. It has
    been a busy few weeks.

    I am slightly surprised by your request. I made the position clear in the penultimate paragraph of my previous letter. The witness statement, letter before action and Counsel's opinion were the product of substantial further work, carried out for the four continuing members of the group and not for you or those for whom you speak.
    My e-mailto Mr Franks does not change that position. Then, early in January, I expected that these documents would be completed virtually immediately on the basis of the work carried out the previous year. In the-evenvthat did not happen and, as I have previously

    explained at length, theywere oniy^mpletejjvejy_rejiejitly. In those circumstances, I do


    not see how you could be entitled to see them or have copies.
    ^

    .,.-

    ..

    I notice that you have not addressed the issue of my fees - the figure of 38,542.80 is "on the clock" for the period during which you and those for whom youspeak were, with

    others, clients in~fespecT'6T this matter. Obviously, I would like co rentier a'biii in this amount but I am conscious that you regard the payments on account which were made at the outset as alreadybeing too high for the work carried out. Do you have a proposaljor tying up all of these matters on behalf of yourselfand the group which you would like me
    to consider?

    I look forward to hearing from you.


    "V ours sincerely \

    triCHARDSLADE

    , 1 ,1
    - J J

    Richard Slade and Company Solicitors 9 Gray's Inn Square London WCiR 5JD 'i. Telephone: t^4 2071 600 900 Facsimile:+44 20 7806S267 Website: vtww.ricuardslade.com DX 141 London/SpANCERY Lake
    Principal: Richard Slade (solicitor) Consultant: Nigel Young (solicitor) RlCC'LATED irTHE SOLICITORS RtGCLAIIO.V Aitikikity SRA N'o. ^9)707

    You might also like