Richard Slade Parasite Frauds Crime Reference: NFRC 130 600 273 105 12.06.13
of 45
description
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.
Transcript of Richard Slade Parasite Frauds Crime Reference: NFRC 130 600 273 105 12.06.13
-
C0iPA NJUMtSOe
~Z7z. 0? weAisztd -f^m-iM
vm$tipkd.
-
foiv\ fDTom cpsvwl^ pAUu ^j^
-
L^
RICHARD SjLAPE -AND COMPANY ^-
Mr Thomas Hanley16 Ballyroan ParkTempleogueDUBLIN 16
14 November 2011 Our Ref: RJSYourRef:e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Mr Hanley
Thank you for your letter of 26 October 2011. I apologise for my delayin replying. It hasbeen a busy few weeks.
I am slightly surprised by your request. I made the position clear in the penultimateparagraph of my previous letter. The witness statement, letter before action andCounsel's opinion were the product of substantial further work, carried out for the fourcontinuing members of the group and not foryouor those for whom youspeak.
My e-mailto Mr Franks does not change that position. Then, early inJanuary, I expectedthat these documents would be completed virtually immediatelyon the basis of the workcarried out the previous year. In the-evenvthat did not happen and, as I have previouslyexplained at length, theywere oniy^mpletejjvejy_rejiejitly. In those circumstances, I donot 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 "onthe clock" for the period during which you and those for whom youspeak were, withothers, clients in~fespecT'6T this matter. Obviously, I would like co rentier a'biii in thisamount but I am conscious that you regard the paymentson account which were made atthe outset as alreadybeing too high for the work carriedout. Do you have a proposaljortying up allof these matters on behalf of yourselfand the group which you would like meto consider?
I look forward to hearing from you.
"V ours sincerely \
triCHARDSLADE
Richard Slade and Company Solicitors 9 Gray's Inn Square London WCiR 5JD 'i., 1 Telephone: t^4 2071600 900 Facsimile:+4420 7806S267 Website: vtww.ricuardslade.com DX 141 London/SpANCERY Lake,1 Principal: Richard Slade (solicitor) Consultant: Nigel Young (solicitor)
- JJ RlCC'LATED irTHE SOLICITORS RtGCLAIIO.V Aitikikity SRA N'o. ^9)707
