EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION Part 1: The Scot Young & Michelle Young insolvency criminal conspiracy – Scot put his faith in the wrong parties: First in the sequel, Intelligence UK International reveals our findings following over 4-years of intensive investigation across multiple high profile corruption cases. It is our view that England has become the economic crime and corruption epicentre of the world. Politicians, judges, law enforcement and regulatory authorities are inter-colluding with amoral lawyers and insolvency practitioners, violating rights granted by the law to asset strip, defraud and hoodwink the people of their assets. We investigated the case of Michelle & Scot Young, boiling it down to the hard evidence and facts to expose the truth.
UPDATE 08/12/2022 – Download Part 1 & 2 of our investigatory report into the case of Michelle and Scot Young.
Scot Young, a hugely successful entrepreneur, Boris Berezovsky, the billionaire Russian oligarch exiled in the UK, rock band manager, Johnny Elichaoff and multi-millionaire property magnates, Paul Castle and Robbie Curtis were known as the Cipriani Five. Billionaire businessmen all meeting violent, suspicious deaths between November 2010 and December 2014. Was it the work of the corrupt British establishment, or just coincidental?
One’s thing for sure, we have established it was not the Russians like the mainstream .Gov propaganda wanted the people to believe.
Michelle Young met Scot through a friend in 1987, after months of dating Scot moved into Michelle’s parent’s Essex based farm and was treated like a member of the family. The couple married in 1995, were happily married for 11-years and have two daughters together.
A combination of growing wealth and infidelity soured their marriage and after finding that Scot was having an affair with Noelle Reno, Michelle filed for divorce in 2007, triggering Scot’s plan to conceal his vast assets, pretending to have lost everything, which ultimately led to his murder.
One of the highest profile divorce cases in the history of the UK, with over £18 million expended lawyers who feasted on the case, a murder cover up by the systemically corrupt Met Police and with judicial, insolvency office holders and lawyers abusing their positions of trust for financial gain, the mainstream media usurped the clearest points at the heart of the case.
Met Police failure to investigate & Scot Young murder cover up
With all fingers pointing to the overwhelming financial motive for murder, Scot Young (“Scot”) died on 8th of December 2014 after allegedly plunging from a fifth-floor window in Marylebone onto steel railings.
In our investigation, expert witnesses concluded that it would have been impossible for Mr Young to land in the position he did on the railings unless he was put there. It just so happened that the Met Police 24-hour police CCTV for that area was turned off during the evening of Scot’s death. A coincidence?
Michelle Young told us “My husband had a fear of heights and in my view would never, ever, have resorted to jumping from the window.”
“Not only were the ornaments on the window sill undisturbed, but where he landed was not underneath the window but some distance out, as if he has been ejected through the open window by two very strong men“
Commenting during the week of Scot’s death Scotland Yard publicly announced that Scot’s death was not being treated as suspicious, handing the case over to the Coroner, who didn’t rule was suicide, but rather, left an open verdict.
In highly unusual circumstances, Noelle Reno was allowed to stay at the crime scene. When Scot and Michelle’s daughters arrived two days after their father’s death to collect some of his belongings, they found Reno and her assistant busily shredding hundreds of pages of documents.
Michelle went on to explain that “the only mafia in this case in my view, is the mafia that is embedded within the Crown’s legal and financial networks. I believe my husband, when he sought to hide our fortune, was selected for asset stripping, along with so many others. Based on my own direct experience as well as that of many others sharing their stories with me these past few years, asset stripping in England is organized crime sanctioned by the Crown.”
The Cipriani Five “Ring of Death”
Widely publicised, it is believed that the murder of Mr Young is connected to that of his wealthy friends, who were all killed in similarly suspicious circumstances.
Grant Thornton just so happened to be the trustee in Mr Berezovsky’s bankruptcy. Both first encountered the Insolvency & Companies Court and unscrupulous insolvency registrars who we have found to have been widely colluding with firms like Grant Thornton in conspiracy to defraud through abuses of position. Also a co-incidence, or something far more sinister?
It is easy for the establishment to “point the finger” at Russia, however, we have found in fact the corruption lays within the Tory Party themselves, who likewise have their own secretive ties to Russia and money laundering connections. Are we looking at a taxpayer financed criminal racketeering enterprise between public officials, the legal and insolvency mafia? It certainly looks that way.
Woodperry House & Wooton Place Oxfordshire
Woodperry House, the impressive Oxfordshire mansion and former home of Michelle and Scot for over 5-years was one of two luxury Oxfordshire properties owned by the couple. Woodperry was built from 1728 for John Morse, a London goldsmith and partner in Child & Co.
The other property owned by the Youngs was Wootton Place, Wootton, Woodstock, which was transferred by Scot to Blondell Assets Ltd, a B.V.I company for a consideration of £9.5 million on the 23rd of November 2006, shortly prior to Michelle announcing divorce.
Blondell Assets Ltd is one of the many offshore companies associated with Scot Young. It was said that Wooton Place was sold in 2020 for £12,250,000, somewhat bizarre, given that Blondell Assets Ltd is beneficially owned by Scot Young.
After being owned by Farzaneh and Kaveh Moussavi, an Iranian human rights lawyer, who sold in 2006 for £20m to Scot and Michelle. It is claimed that Scot then sold Woodperry House in 2009 to the Belgian financier Pierre Lagrange, somewhat odd, given that after receiving the proceeds, he filed for bankruptcy just a few months later, that’s some burn rate.
Boris Berezovsky divorced Ms Besharova in 2010 and when they divorced, Berezovsky claimed to have assets including property worth over £500 million (excluding potential recoveries from litigation), which included substantial property held in various trusts, companies and other entities. The divorce settlement between the couple was said to have been the largest in the history of the UK.
Mr Berezovsky died in March 2013 and in similar circumstances to Mr Young’s, the coroner recorded an open verdict. On 29th April 2013, Mr Berezovsky’s deceased estate was declared insolvent and similarly, Messrs Kevin Hellard and Nicholas Wood of Grant Thornton UK LLP were appointed as Joint Receivers.
In July 2016, Mr Justice Arnold, now Lord Justice Arnold, a judge that we have proven to be corrupt, claimed that £34 million remains in Mr Berezovsky’s insolvency serving account but creditors’ claims run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Again, the millions have seemingly disappeared. How coincidental?
It is our informed opinion that England’s judiciary, magic circle law firms and insolvency practitioners, including Grant Thornton are part of a criminal racketeering enterprise targeting the wealthy to asset strip them through insolvency. Murdering their victims ensures they cannot talk. Methods of silencing through restraint orders and deprivation of access to justice are commonplace methods deployed by this cabal.
Robbie Curtis & Paul Castle – Vast wealth followed by insolvency then suspicious death – the common synergy
Robbie Curtis, who died at Kingsbury tube station in 2012 after declaring himself bankrupt in 2009 and, Polo-playing Paul Stanley Castle, 54, a friend of Prince Charles, who also allegedly threw himself in front of a train on 17th November 2010 at Bond Street station as he allegedly faced bankruptcy.
Paul Castle, also multi-millionaire property developer who owned his own Polo team, the Metropolitan, shared the same synergy as Mr Young, Mr Berezovsky and Mr Curtis, with a substantial portfolio of residential properties in London and Oxfordshire, including his business address in Mayfair. Mr Castle’s trading entity, Chelford Investments Ltd was placed into insolvency on 25th May 2011.
The Scot Young Asset Tracing Schedule – Categoric proof of over £800 million in cash and property assets
Irrefutable documentation from the hard drive of Mr Young’s computer in 2008 shows a total value of his asset portfolio in excess of £800 million pounds. This was however, only a fraction of his true wealth, with the estate now estimated to be valued at over £4 billion.
Intelligence UK examined the evidence, leading us to discover over £220 million in cash and property assets belonging to the Scot Young estate, all within easy reach of the Grant Thornton Joint Trustees. They claim not to have recovered a single asset.
In this article and later in our sequel revealing our comprehensive investigation into this case, we will expose the extent of the assets that the Joint Trustees failed to recover, leaving many unanswered questions.
The façade – Project Moscow
It was said that Scot Young, Robbie Curtis and Paul Castle invested around £140m in the purported Project Moscow scheme between 2006 – 2008. There was in fact however, no evidence whatsoever of any of them investing in the scheme said to have been introduced by Berezovsky.
Once again, there was only mainstream media speculation and propaganda, regurgitating what was produced by the last, only in a slightly different way.
The corrupt British establishment relies heavily on fake news to detract the public’s attention away from circumstances far more sinister. Blaming the Russians is the favorite game.
It was in fact Stephen David Jones who brought Project Moscow into the equation. Reporting on the case in November 2013, the Independent observed that:
The court heard that Mr Jones had a “conflict of interest” after acting for both Mr Young and for creditors that resulted from the deal, which included Ekaterina Berezovskaya, the daughter of deceased Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky.
Documents were read out in court showing Mr Young signed over “power of attorney” to control interests held by the tycoon in offshore trusts in March 2006. Mr Jones said he was acting on “instructions from the creditors”.
The court also heard that £6 million from “Project Moscow” had been siphoned off into an offshore entity called the “SY Refinance Foundation” controlled by Mr Jones.
The lawyer, who denied separate allegations that he forged documents during another related legal dispute, told Mr Justice Moor this was used to pay off other creditors unrelated to Project Moscow.
Mr Jones had previously given evidence to the High Court in 2011 that Mr Young had lost “between ten and fifteen million pounds in cash terms” on Project Moscow. But on Monday, he agreed with Mr Young’s latest submission last week, that the businessman never lost any money on the deal at all. Mr Jones said: “He personally didn’t lose any money.”
Despite repeatedly claiming he never acted for Mr Young, the court heard the lawyer wrote a £2.9 million promissory note in April 2007 on behalf of Mr Young to his creditor, Ms Berezovskaya.
Rex Howling QC, acting for Ms Young, said: “This isn’t a debt owing at all and this is just a sham, isn’t it?”
Mr Jones replied: “Why would that be the case?” Mr Howling said: “Because Mr Young had the money all along.” Mr Jones denied the allegation.
Mr Justice Moor said he was “very troubled” by evidence that Jirehouse had assigned debts to itself, and had become a creditor to Mr Young’s hotly-disputed bankruptcy in 2010.
In summary, Jones himself was forced to admit that Scot never lost money in Project Moscow at all. It was essentially a front to assist in concealment of Scot’s vast estate after he faked his own bankruptcy with assistance of his legal and accounting associates.
There is substantive evidence showing Scot’s assets and cash in bank accounts long after the alleged collapse of the Project Moscow deal, including conclusive evidence of cheques paid out of Mr Young’s personal bank account in the sum totaling £58,500,487 between the last quarter of 2005 and throughout 2006.
There is a further cheque paid to Stephen David Jone’s company, Jirehouse Capital in the sum of £1.8 million, processed on 21st February 2006. They later purport to be creditor of Scot’s bankruptcy.
Rather a lot of legal and fiduciary agent work in £1.8 million? In the 2013 proceedings, Jones is recorded in Court stating he never even acted for Scot.
Scot Young placed his trust in the wrong parties – Stephen David Jones of Jirehouse Capital & links to Grant Thornton
It is our learned view that Scot Young placed his trust in the wrong parties to conceal his vast wealth during the lengthy and costly divorce proceedings with Michelle.
Ultimately, that error of judgment led to his murder, a massive insolvency-based fraud that ensued, establishing the motive and shining the spotlight on the likely conspirators to murder.
Scot entrusted Stephen David Jones, a lawyer of Jirehouse Capital, who ran various offshore “fiduciary agencies” designed to conceal assets of the wealthy in offshore corporate structures. After many years of business dealings, Scot provided a lasting power of attorney to Jones whilst he “restructured Mr Young’s assets”.
Jones therefore had full control and knowledge of the whereabouts of all Mr Young’s assets, yet he was never questioned by Grant Thornton.
We found that Jones had a long-established pre-existing relationship with Grant Thornton, of whom David Ingram and Richard Hicken later became trustee’s of Mr Young’s alleged bankruptcy estate.
On the 9th of April 2010, Scot Young was adjudged bankrupt, his billions just “vanish” following the alleged collapse of “project Moscow”, the Russian business deal we established that Scot never lost any money in.
The British establishment do have a habit of blaming the Russians, but the biggest corruption problem is firmly on home turf.
Long after the Young’s billions disappeared in the hands of Jones and Grant Thornton, Jones was jailed in August 2019 when £9.6 million transferred to his firm by US based firm, Discovery Land for purchase of Taymouth Castle to Jirehouse , the brand name for Jones’s array of dodgy offshoots including a law firm, also “went missing”.
Actions speak louder than words, and the finding is somewhat revealing as to Jones’s persona, he is clearly willing to commit criminal offences if the price is right, yet the police failed whatsoever to make any formal investigation in relation to his affiliation with Mr Young’s murder. The cover up ensued.
Stephen David Jones has long established business relationships with Ruslan Fomichev (said to have been part of the non existent “Project Moscow” scheme) and Kevin Cash. The fiduciary agent services of Jones have been used by those parties to conceal beneficial ownership of other high value cash assets through those Jirehouse companies, of which we have a non exhaustive list of 79 associated offshore and UK companies.
David Ingram, Grant Thornton & insolvency: The racketeer’s armory deployed to defraud & conceal?
Scot orchestrated his own bankruptcy with Jones after hiding assets in offshore entities to evade paying his wife half the true value of his estate.
Ingram played the lead role, along with Hicken, appointed as joint trustees by Jones’s Jirehouse, who posed as Mr Young’s bogus creditors.
Trustees in bankruptcy owe a fiduciary duty to act at all times in the interests of creditors generally and to exercise all possible means, investigating the circumstances and recovering and realizing all assets associated with the bankrupt’s estate, which are distributed as dividends to creditors.
Ingram and Hicken claimed not to have recovered a single asset. They were in regular communication with Jones, who concealed Scot’s assets. No questions asked.
Michelle Young was by far requisite majority creditor of Scot Young’s bankruptcy estate
After over 50 hearings in the secretive family courts, on the 22nd of November 2013 Michelle Young was awarded £26.6 million by Moor J and half of the value of the estate recovered.
By virtue of this judgment, Michelle had over 80% of the requisite majority voting interest in Scot Young’s bankruptcy estate and her proof of debt (claim against Scot Young’s bankruptcy estate) was lodged soon after.
Michelle Young wanted to appoint alternative trustees
After over two-years of procrastination by the Joint Trustees, who were apparently failing to follow through on the comprehensive and conclusive asset tracing reports provided by Michelle Young’s agents locating most of Mr Young’s assets, Michelle wanted to appoint an alternative trustee who would act in her interests and perform on their duties to recover assets for creditors.
It became clear to Michelle from mid 2010 onwards that the Joint Trustees appeared unwilling to follow up on the asset tracing reports and they had failed in their statutory duty to provide progress reports to creditors.
The statutory insolvency framework & democratic rights of creditors
As requisite majority creditor of Scot Young’s bankruptcy estate with over 80% of the majority voting interest, Michelle had the democratic right to vote to replace the Joint Trustees with a trustee of her desired choice.
This essentially means that Michelle could have applied to the Secretary of State via the Official Receiver’s Office to order replacement of the trustees, without going to court.
The Joint Trustees could oppose such appointment, in which case it would have been for them to bring proceedings and at that time it was the duty of the Court to have established whether there were proper grounds for replacing them.
Given the extent of the evidence provided by Michelle and her advisors proving that there are assets within easy reach, those grounds were not difficult to establish. The judges turned a blind eye.
Andrew Hochhauser QC was factored into the case, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge to aid and abet the fraud
Andrew Hochhauser QC sought to make Michelle’s right to call a meeting of creditors, a democratic right she already had, conditional upon payment of the alleged costs founded by the Trustee’s challenge to Michelle’s annulment application, when the Joint Trustees had a duty to remain impartial in any such application.
The conduct by Hochhauser QC was a fraud in itself, defrauding Michelle of a democratic right of which she is entitled.
Hochhauser QC did know, or ought to have known, what he was doing was amoral and of dishonest intent.
It was Hochhauser’s part in the judicial conspiracy, which overlapped with Scot Young’s death, that enabled the corrupt Grant Thornton Joint Trustees to go on to bankrupt Michelle to defraud her of her rights as requisite majority creditor. They sought to defeat the £26.6 million judgment order and to remove Michelle from the equation, so they could do what they were doing with Scot Young’s vast bankruptcy estate.
The Joint Trustees sought to defeat the £26.6 million judgment order, to defraud Michelle of her rights to remove her from the equation so they could do what they were doing with Scot’s vast bankruptcy estate. The fees said to have been incurred, (c£86,000) which were later used to bankrupt Michelle unlawfully, were, we allege, founded solely by Hochhauser’s fraudulent abuse of position.
David Ingram and Richard Hicken of Grant Thornton evaded even the “low hanging fruit” that was to be harvested for creditors
The “low hanging fruit” for the Joint Trustees of Scot’s bankruptcy estate was simply to follow the money. The asset schedules provided by Michelle, in particular the Stanley Beller intelligence report, is particularly revealing. At page 62 of the report we looked at the BVI entity, Balymena Equities S.A.
It was found and admitted by the fiduciary agents of Balymena that Mr Young was a beneficiary of the Company that ultimately owned 39 Chester Terrace (now worth over £7 million).
14th on the Sunday Times 2018 Rich List, worth over £500 million, Cash was a close associate of Scot Young, with his Bluestar Property Group said to manage property portfolios for some of the UK’s richest celebrities and businessmen, including luxury real estate in Mayfair, Miami and Marbella.
Cash was declared bankrupt in July 2018, with his trustees putting his much loved Oxfordshire 11-bedroomed mansion, North Aston Hall, near Bicester up for sale at over £26 million. Again, £500 million simply vanishes?
It was found that Scot Young had a 40% shareholding in Balymena Equities S.A and yet his shareholding was removed at the end of 2015 on the instruction of Mr and Mrs Cash, the other shareholders. That 40% shareholding however vested in the bankruptcy estate of Mr Young from the date of his bankruptcy. It appears that the Joint Trustees did nothing whatsoever to recover 40% of the Company’s shares that belong to the estate.
The account associated with Balymena Equities was found to have a credit balance of $796,200 and was opened in 2009, just a short time prior to making of Mr Young’s bankruptcy order on 9th April 2010.
Gwilym Michael Davies admitted under oath he was acting as nominee shareholder for Mr Young
On 12th of April 2011, under oath in Court, Gwilym Michael Davies, a long-term business associate of Scot, made the admission that he was acting as a nominee shareholder and director for “a number of Mr Young’s companies”.
All of those companies were of significant value and the shareholdings all belonged to the bankruptcy estate from 9th April 2010.
Gwilym Michael Davies made the admission that the properties he owned on paper and was holding for Mr Young included the property in Miami valued at circa $8 million, and Dione House, Oxford Road, Stockenchurch, High Wycombe, Bucks, HP4 3SX.
Dione House was sold on 23rd November 2017 for £3,225,000. This property is associated with Dione PLC, it was the registered office of the company that Scot purchased from John Walters.
Once again, the Joint Trustees seemingly did nothing whatsoever to recover these assets belonging to Scot’s bankruptcy estate.
Financial irregularities – The money trail
Formerly acting as director of Dione Ltd is another company associated with Scot, Hexagon Registrars Ltd (Company no: 02368965), of which Paul Laurence Osborne of Fox Williams sat as a director since 3rd October 1996. The company was dissolved via voluntary strike-off on 9th June 2015.
There are irregularities in the company’s accounting presentation that are entirely inconsistent with the admissions and statements made by the Company’s members.
We examined and followed intel gathered across 7-pages specifically around Dione and Hexagon. Page 1 refers to the authorised share capital of Hexagon being £212,778.53. The authorised share capital submitted to Companies House is just £6. Page 3 is particularly telling, it is a document evidencing the actual money sale proceeds that was distributed and the dates of the wire transfers by Paul Osborne of Fox Williams on behalf of Mr Young. The total sum is $73,523,043.36. The bank accounts of Mr Young are also referred to.
We examined and followed intel gathered across 7-pages specifically around Dione and Hexagon. Page 1 refers to the authorised share capital of Hexagon being £212,778.53. The authorised share capital submitted to Companies House is just £6. Page 3 is particularly telling, it is a document evidencing the actual money sale proceeds that was distributed and the dates of the wire transfers by Paul Osborne of Fox Williams on behalf of Scot. The total sum is $73,523,043.36. Scot’s bank accounts are also referred to.
Page 5 is a note from Scot himself, quoting his address at 39 Chester Terrace and asking Susan Elizabeth Roy, a solicitor of Ashhurst LLP in relation to EPOSS Ltd, a company manufacturing touch screen cash tills to transfer all money received on behalf of his “nominee companies”, referring to Hexagon Property Investments Ltd, Shipston Investments Ltd, Dominion Nominees Ltd and Honington Investments Ltd in connection with the sale and purchase of 51% of the ordinary issued capital of Eposs Ltd to the client account of Fox Williams, also specifying the Fox Williams client account with the last four digits ending 2171.
No solicitor would be able to fulfill their stringent anti-money laundering checks based on this instruction.
It is our learned opinion that Fox Williams has also played a hugely instrumental part in the concealment of Scot’s assets. The evidence however does prove that Scot beneficially owned both Dione PLC and Eposs Ltd.
In October 2004 Dione was acquired by Lipman Electronic Engineering (NASDAQ: LPMA) for a total of USD $112 million. At the time of acquisition, Scot beneficially owned 100% of Dione through his fiduciary agent, Davies.
One must naturally pose the question therefore as to why the Joint Trustees, David Ingram and Richard Hicken of Grant Thornton failed to take any action whatsoever in relation to recovering those shares held by Davies on behalf of Scot when he had already disclosed he was holding those assets?
Witness testimony from John Walters
We examined the witness statement of John Walters dated 18th July 2015. The third paragraph of page 1 refers to the fact that Mr Young exclusively purchased the company from Mr Walters. The 4th paragraph of page 2 refers to the fact that Mr Young purchased the Company from Mr Walters for £12 million and the offer was accepted. The 6th paragraph refers to Paul Osborne of Fox Williams acting for Mr Young during the sale.
The second paragraph of page 3 refers to Dione being sold to Lipman Electronic Engineering in 2004 for $69 million USD with a further uplift of $33.4 million if the company continued to perform well. The consideration of $69 million USD is consistent with the figure of £45 million referred to in Mr Osborne’s email negotiating the sale.
In the third paragraph of page 3 of his statement, Mr Walters refers to Mr Young’s wealth being concealed and that someone associated closely with Mr Young had previously forged documents. It is our understanding that the person referred to was Gwilym Michael Davies, acting as “nominee shareholder”, holding Mr Young’s shares whilst also acting as director for several of Mr Young’s companies.
The 2010 & 2011 suspicious activities & inquisition into Scot Young’s life insurance policies by Ingram & Hicken
The Joint Trustees were making enquiries in relation to the life insurance policies held by Mr Young, the policyholder, in 2010, over 4 years prior to his death.
A life insurance policy is only of benefit to the beneficiaries if the policyholder dies.
Anyone, with even basic knowledge of the law, or just common sense, knows that a life insurance policy is only of benefit to the beneficiaries of the policy, and not the policyholder.
There is no value in the policy that would vest in the bankruptcy estate if the policy holder was adjudged bankrupt. In fact, most life insurance policies are structured via a discretionary trust, making them “bankruptcy proof” to protect the interests of the beneficiaries, as this one was.
We can envisage no logical explanation as to why the Joint Trustees would be so insistent on making enquiries into a life insurance policy held by Mr Young in 2010, unless they knew then that he was going to die. Mr Young was in good health.
The total consideration across the 3 life insurance policies was £21,385,000 and those policies, all structured in discretionary trusts, were exercisable only by Michelle, the sole trustee.
The beneficiaries were Michelle and her two daughters.
One must naturally scrutinise the motive as to the Joint Trustees being so concerned with Mr Young’s life insurance policies in 2010 and 2011.
The Zurich life insurance policy
We exhibit evidence from 2010 between Zurich and David Ingram of Grant Thornton where Ingram is asking Zurich to “surrender” the life insurance policy and where Zurich refuses to do so, telling Ingram categorically that the policy is held in a discretionary trust for the beneficiaries, Michelle and her two daughters.
The 19th October 2010 letter from Zurich to Ingram which enclosed the £1.385 million life insurance policy
Ingram did not apply to the Court to set aside the trust. On the balance of probabilities Ingram knew, like anyone else in his position would do, that the application would be no more or less than bound to fail.
The 8th August 2011 letter from Zurich in response to another demand from Ingram to surrender the life insurance policy
9-months and 6 days (279-days) after Ingram of Grant Thornton was expressly told by Zurich Insurance that the policy is held in trust for Michelle and her daughters, and after being furnished with a copy of the actual policy terms, in absence of applying to Court, Ingram abused his position of authority once again, to demand surrender of the life insurance policy. Zurich responded, telling him the same:
Mutual dealings in respect of the Life Insurance Policy, which became a £1,385 million asset vested in Michelle Young as sole trustee and beneficiary, arose on the 19th of October 2010 when Ingram and Hicken of Grant Thornton were made acutely aware of this substantial asset belonging to Michelle and her two daughters.
The judicial conspiracy to defraud – Deliberate failure to apply the mandatory law of insolvency set off arising through mutual dealings
The common synergy in all the judicial criminal conspiracy cases centered around insolvency that we investigated exposes the one major loophole that criminal racketeering lawyers, judges and insolvency practitioners are exploiting.
Statutory insolvency set off is essential in protecting the rights of creditors of insolvent estates, just as much so as it is the rights of every litigant. Set off is designed to protect the rights of parties to a claim from either party abusing the law to render one’s opposing litigant insolvent as a means of evading justice.
We find in this case that the Court was the biggest conduit to the Joint Trustee’s fraud, they bankrupted Michelle to defraud her of her democratic rights as requisite majority creditor.
Once again, there was no scrutiny as to the motive.
The mandatory statutory duty of the Court to apply insolvency set off
Section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986 compels the judicial office holder to mandatorily apply set off where there are mutual dealings between a petitioning creditor (or one claiming to prove) and the alleged bankrupt. Section 323(2) confers that mandatory legal duty:
(2) An account shall be taken of what is due from each party to the other in respect of the mutual dealings and the sums due from one party shall be set off against the sums due from the other.
In 2020 the Supreme Court in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) affirmed that the duty to apply insolvency set off is mandatory and applies to all types of insolvency.
Paragraph 27 of the judgment:
“The special rules as to set-off in the context of insolvency (usually labelled “insolvency set-off”) form a small but important part of the wider statutory insolvency code, which is directed to ensuring that the assets of an insolvent person (individual or company) are first collected in and then distributed mainly pari passu among those with relevant claims of the same priority. Speaking generally, those objectives are served by the imposition of substantial restraints upon what creditors might otherwise be able to do by way of enforcing their rights. These restraints serve both to optimise the collection and realisation of the insolvent person’s assets and to prevent a free for all among the creditors in seeking to get their hands on them“.
Paragraph 29 of the judgment:
“..insolvency set-off is mandatory, and takes effect upon the commencement of the insolvency (the “cut-off date”). It is said to be self-executing, and for some purposes the original cross-claims are replaced by a single claim for the balance“
There is a deliberate and malicious failure by the corrupt English courts to administer the law impartially, and it’s the same law in all the cases we investigated where the delinquent judges abuse their positions in this way to assist fellow criminal racketeers, lawyers and insolvency practitioners in using the courts and insolvency law to defraud creditors. None of the victims, both companies and individuals were ever insolvent.
The £1,385 million life insurance policy was the claim founded by mutual dealings that was to be mandatorily set off against Ingram & Hicken’s fraudulently obtained costs
It is evidential that mutual dealings between Michelle, Ingram and Hicken, who later became the Michelle’s petitioners for bankruptcy based on their dishonestly obtained circa £86,000 alleged debt arose as early as October 2010, when both Ingram and Hicken were made aware by Zurich that the life insurance policy is an asset belonging to Michelle and her two daughters.
The fraud perpetrated against Michelle encompassed judicial conspiracy to defraud, first on the part of Hochhauser QC, who worked for the Joint Trustees to originate their alleged petition debt, which in any event never even existed. Registrar Garwood (deceased) was then factored in to collude with Chris Branson of Boyes Turner, representing Ingram and Hicken, without jurisdiction, in using the fictitious petition debt to defraud Michelle of her rights as majority creditor of Scot Young’s estate, and of her £26.6 million money judgment. It was a most serious and carefully planned criminal conspiracy and once again, England’s judges are at the heart of it, aiding and abetting.
The life insurance payout was to be paid to Michelle and her two daughters on the day following Scot Young’s death. It is likewise evidential that both Ingram and Hicken knew of this, and it goes without saying that any judge would know that a life insurance payout would be affected very quickly. In fact, it was evidential to them all that all Michelle needed to do was to sign to execute the trust and funds would be released. Knowing this, the corrupt Court and Registrar Garwood deliberately failed in their mandatory statutory duty to apply insolvency set off.
In theHouse of Lords 1969 Anisminic judgment, the highest court of the land established what is known as the collateral fact doctrine and that any failure by the judicial office holder to apply the law, where the law is to be applied, renders the decision a nullity. In other words, Michelle’s bankruptcy is a nullity, nothing but a fraud with no legal effect from the outset.
Snippets from Michelle Young’s bankruptcy petition hearing
On the 20th of July 2015, knowing that the life insurance payout was long overdue to Michelle, and was a substantial asset originating by mutual dealings between Michelle and the Joint trustees, they presented a bankruptcy petition against Michelle to defraud her of the £26.6 million judgment and half of the value of the estate recovered.
Early during the hearing, at page 4 of the transcript, the one of the three life insurance policies vested in Michelle was referred to by Michelle’s McKenzie Friend, a non practicing barrister:
Chris Branson, acting for Ingram and Hicken of Grant Thornton lied and immediately attempted to imply that the “Allied Dunbar life policy of ten million” and the several life insurance policies were “an asset in the bankruptcy“, referring to the bankruptcy estate of Scot Young of which his client was appointed.
Any lawyer would know the statement made by Branson was entirely false. In fact, what Branson did was reveal their plan in the conspiracy, to defraud the beneficiaries of those life policies, using their fraudulent bankruptcy order (a nullity) as the means from which to do so.
Responding immediately, after having read the precise terms of the Zurich life insurance policy, knowing that Michelle and her two daughters were beneficiaries to all 3 policies, acting in collusion with Chris Branson, acting for Ingram & Hicken, said this:
Of course, Registrar Garwood knew, as well as Ingram and Hicken did, that the life insurance payouts are assets of the beneficiaries and that the payments would extinguish the fraudulent fees invented by Hochhauser QC to assist with their fraud.
Garwood was making excuses and trying to conceal the life policies that he was under a mandatory legal duty to have set off. If the Court acted lawfully, it would have easily been established that there was in fact no petition debt at all. Clearly and indisputably a fundamental defect, rendering the proceeding a nullity.
Registrar Garwood then made the admission that the Court would typically adjourn a bankruptcy petition hearing in circumstances where there is reasonable prospect that the debt subject of proceedings could be paid within a reasonable timeframe:
Registrar Garwood, Chris Branson and his clients, Ingram and Hicken knew that either of the life insurance payments would have been made very quickly, in particular, that Zurich policy which was to be mandatorily set off against the fraudulent petitioning creditor’s claim in any event.
In full knowledge that there was in fact over £20 million to be paid to Michelle and her daughters from the 3 life insurance policies, Registrar Garwood and his co-conspirators proceeded to bankrupt Michelle to defraud her of the £26.6 million judgment (plus standard interest) and half of the value of the assets recovered.
They wanted Michelle, requisite majority creditor, out of the way so they could feast on Scot Young’s vast estate without anyone being any the wiser, or so they thought.
The motive for murder and the prime suspects
We exhibit below an email from David Ingram to Mr Young on 30th of October 2014. It should be noted that what Ingram is proposing by means of that IVA is entirely unlawful in its own right. A trustee cannot favour one creditor over the other, giving one a 100% return of their claim whilst giving the rest 1%.
At the second paragraph, it is cited that Stephen David Jones would support that, on the basis that he would “be happy for you to get on with your life”. Mr Young was killed exactly 5-weeks later. A coincidence?Email_Ingram_to_SY_30-_10_2014_1301
On today’s date, the £26.6 million money judgment alone, inclusive of standard accrued interest is £44,172,032.88.
When we interviewed Paul Allen of FRP Advisory, who was installed by Ingram and Hicken to act as Michelle’s trustee in bankruptcy, he claimed that he would be retaining ownership of the judgment, which is, for all intents and purposes, criminal property obtained through this serious conspiracy to defraud.
Of course, even if there was no fraud, one cannot base “something on nothing“, as Lord Denning put it.
The bankruptcy order is a nullity, Ingram, Hicken and Allen were acting in excess of jurisdiction from the outset, they all were.
We have asked David Ingram of Grant Thornton, Andrew Hochhauser QC of Essex Court Chambers, Paul Allen of FRP and Dominic Raab, the Lord Chancellor responsible for the English justice system to comment on this article.
In the follow up we expose how the fraud was perpetrated and how Paul Allen then sought to effectively bribe Michelle to part with her £1.385 million life insurance payout, for £15,000, off the back of their void bankruptcy order. This is how the English justice system operates.