Page 139 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 138

c
APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
PART S:CHRONOLOGY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
'
�
) f jX\ r1,t • obscu,e the audit trnit of the trnnsfe, in both his Nat West Bank account and the
fl'.
:f'
'!
Bacdays Woolwkh account
J\\X' t tr \i 4 </BO. The main mate,i al diffe,ence in outcome from the convolution is that the pmcessed
� '� 1f\t cheque was not made payable to "APMS and LPJS Siggers"• as would be expected and
\li�{UT;J� I was essential if the money was qualified for later withdrawal 60 • but to "Barclays Bank
r
r PLC'. The cheque has serious manipulative potential. For example, the returned cheque
and the computerised receipt could be used to "prove" that £500,000 had been returned
to AIG 61 •

5.16 CONVERGENCE OF CLAIM AND DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
81. In December 2016, APMS was declared redundant and claimed to be unable pay
maintenance and school fees. In fact, it appears that he volunteered to accept a very
generous redundancy package so that he could set up a new enterprise from which he
expected to make a fortune. He "wanted LPS off his books once and for all" so that she did
not share in his anticipated success.

82. APMS frittered away £250,000 in severance pay on a succession of "gap year" expensive
62
holidays and gambling, denied that he had plans for any new business, accepted a low
paying job that would be used as the baseline for future maintenance and presented
himself to the Court as the penniless underdog6 3 •

83. On 7 June 2017, APMS claimed, in a statement submitted to the Family Court, that the
th
£500,000 had been a gift to LPJS and should be treated as "her asset" in setting future
maintenance levels 64 • APMS told LPJS, that since the £500,000 was in the joint mortgage
account (to which he remained a signatonJ) she should be grateful that he had not taken it.
He said he had put a block on the account to prevent LPJS drawing on it65.

84. The Claimant gave the impression of being outraged and traduced APMS for imposing the
block, but he was unwilling to do anything about it. Evidence has recently emerged
showing that the outrage was a sham because the Claimant had blocked the funds from
the outset 66 • He knew it was safe from APMS's clutches and could not be withdrawn by
anyone until the entire mortgage was redeemed.
5.17 £500,000 UNDER THREAT
85. LPJS was worried that APMS would carry out his threat to withdraw some of all of the
£500,000 67 • For reasons LPJS did not understand at the time, the Claimant was
unconcerned 68 • LPJS suggested that she and the Claimant should agree 69 that the £500,000

60 And paid into the feeder account rather than the mortgage proper
61 There is absolutely no evidence that this was the Claimant's intention, but the possibility is being pursued
62 Tax paid
63 Immediately a�er the Final Hearing, APMS resigned from his token, baseline setting employment and announced
that his shares in the new enterprise are worth millions"
64 This was the first time LPJS had given the status of the £500,000 any thought.
65 At the Final Hearing on 21" May 2018 the Order accepted that the £500,000 was a gm, that LPJS's relationship
with the Claimant was "permanent" and reduced the life-time maintenance due from APMS accordingly
r
66 APMS's block was irelevant and the Claimant knew it
67 And liad already taken 111oney i11 tliis way
68 because he had blocked the account from the outset
69 Subject to taking legal advice
15 I Page