Insolvency law and its regulators– A license to defraud

In the UK, insolvency is poorly regulated and the principles of the legislation and the primary legislation itself is flawed and is often contradicted by adverse actions of insolvency practitioners and lawyer advocates. Unscrupulous lawyers and office holders use these flaws as the means from which to defraud citizens and their businesses of their rightfully owned assets. The conduct is widespread and our courts are being weaponized by the establishment, constituting gross Human Rights violations and unlawful activities by the out of control public authorities and the offshoot private trustees in insolvency.

We first focus on the statistics, “the fuel for the fire” so to speak. In referring to the 2019 Company insolvency statistics published by the Insolvency Service, page 6 of the report indicates that company insolvencies increased by 8,533 from the 2018 report bringing the total to 24,638 up until the second quarter of 2019. Personal insolvencies recorded until the end of the 3rd quarter 2019 also increased by 93,042 from the previous year, a total of 208,361 combined insolvencies. That is, undoubtedly a huge money spinner for central government.


The Secretary of State, under the guise of the Insolvency Service charges mandatory fees of £6,000 (Secretary of State fee), plus the £2,775 statutory Official Receiver fee against all insolvencies, both company and personal. £,8,775 per insolvency, equating to £1,828,367,775 in revenue to the Secretary of State from the combined insolvencies in the last year alone.


Intelligence UK argues that the public authorities are unlawfully profiteering from insolvency in two different ways. Firstly, they are profiteering unlawfully from the role of the fiduciary trustee and secondly, they are making gains founded by fraud and illegality.


Flawed insolvency legislation paves the way for widespread abuse and criminal fraud:

“There is no statutory process in the current Act that makes provision for either the courts, nor the insolvency practitioner appointed office holder to “verify the putative creditor’s true position” prior to admission of the alleged claim in the petition or thereafter as a claim in the insolvency.”


“By virtue of this flaw, alleged debts that are disputed and debts that could not be established are being used to unlawfully deprive creditors and citizens of their assets; In this case, by virtue of the flawed legislation and because the office holder is not obligated naturally “to verify the creditor’s true position” prior to admission of any proof of debt for voting, the law works against the interests of creditors, the legitimate ones, where a proof can be admitted, even though it is a bad proof, to obtain pecuniary interest in the alleged insolvent estate and to prevent creditors from their natural right to call a meeting of creditors.”  -Intelligence UK


The Official Receiver Fees are unlawful:

In many cases, the Official Receiver, acting as a fiduciary Trustee, has not been required to undertake any work that would justify the fee of £2,775 plus the £6,000 Secretary of State fee. To be lawful, such fees must be proportionate, in accordance with the actual work completed and, on a case specific basis. More often than not, this is not the case and the Official Receiver fee of £8,775 is applied irrespectively, even in cases where no work was required and similarly in cases that were founded by fraud in one form or the other. The actions of BEIS, the Secretary of State and the Insolvency Service in perpetrating this conduct is wholly unlawful.


The conduct in misappropriation Official Receiver fees contravenes the long stablished international precedent insofar as the decision of Keech v. Sandford , 20 E.R. 223 in 1726, being that precedent insofar as a trustee may not make a profit for himself through his trusteeship whatsoever. It is a fundamental duty of a fiduciary trustee, whether in bankruptcy or otherwise, that he must not permit his personal interest to conflict with his duty as trustee. This duty extends to any profits which the court may consider to be acquired improperly and precludes the trustee from overcharging his feed in the administration of the estate from which he is appointed


Both public and private trustees however are acting to the contrary and are widely profiteering. Same is said for the Secretary of State and the Official Receiver fees that are more often than not, misapplied and disproportionate to the level of work required or carried out.

The Intelligence UK solution:

It is our steadfast opinion and strategy that the only way to tackle this problem is to deal with it privately, directly and robustly according to the law. The police do not, the public authorities that are tasked with doing so do not, so we made it our mission to investigate and prosecute all officers under the crown that engage in this corruption against the public interest. After many years of intelligence gathering and investigation, our strategy is beginning to yield results.

We shall continue to target the ones at the top of the food chain responsible for these atrocities, to drain the swamp and bring an end to this cesspool of corruption, restoring the rule of law and to restore justice where there was otherwise none, for the good of our country and our future generations.