Page 509 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

-25-
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO CITY OF LONDON POLICE
and to THE INSOLVENCY SERVICE
mitre house management limited (“mhml”) – company no: 07731341
mitre house, 124 King’s road, london sW3 4tP (“mitre house” or “the Property”) directors of mhml: Paul Brown-constable, dima international limited (Jamil raja) and segar Karupiah (resigned 29 september 2016) (together “the directors”).
CUSATIONS MADE TO DATE AND WELL ESTABLISHED IN PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE THIS INFERENCE THAT I “had originally hoped to pocket approximately £29,000 personally (of which
approximately £9,000 to be shared with his “sub-contractors”), out of the “savings” he was al- legedly making on the refurbishment project” HAS TO TAKE THE CANDLE?
51. a specific request for discovery will be made of the 2014 banking records of the Price- plan Xs account no: 23433668 for 2014. and also for the banking records for mhml’s mystery account no: 25809768 for 2014-2016.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: WELL I HOPE SO AS IT’S MY ONLY CHANCE OF BEING FOUND INNOCENT AND I’LL BET YOU ANOTHER SLAP UP LUNCH I’M CONSIDERABLY IN CREDIT WHICH WON’T PLEASE YOUR CLIENT IF I GET IT BACK..... YOU MUST HAVE THESE 2014 CURRENT ACCOUNT STATEMENTS [MRS H HAS HAD THEM TO MAY 2014 BUT BET SHE DENIES IT - YOU’LL GET USED TO IT] AS YOU’VE QUOTED SO MANY EXAMPLES FROM THEM BOTH IN PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE AND ABOVE? BUT: AN ORDER FOR DISCOVERY WAS MADE FOR THE SERVICE CHARGE ACCOUNTS 2014 TO DATE (JUNE 2017) AND WERE ALL SUPPLIED TO MAUNDER TAYLOR ON 23 JUNE 2017 AND INCLUDED MHML’S ACCOUNT NO: 23433668 (THE “PRICEPLAN XS ACCOUNT”) FOR 2014
52. assuming these assumptions are shown to have been correct, the following offences appear to have been committed:
(a) “fraud by false representation” (contrary to section 2 of the fraud act 2006), - eg by representing that the refurbishment work was to be carried out exclusively by a&r lawrence, when it was not;
(b) “ fraud by failing to disclose information” (contrary to section 3 of the fraud act 2006) – eg by refusing to disclose details of who had been paid what in relation to the refurbishment work; and
(c) “fraud by abuse of position” (contrary to section 4 of the fraud act 2006) – in that his position (per mhml) as landlord enabled mr Brown-constable to exploit his role as a service provider.
53. mr Brown-constable subsequently attempted to cover up what he had done by falsify- ing and/or concealing information required for accounting purposes, knowing full well that the in- formation actually provided in the service charge accounts was (to quote the theft act 1968) “misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular”. in this respect he was guilty of publica- tion of false statements contrary to section 17 of the theft act 1968. it remains unclear whether the auditor was complicit in this or whether mr Brown-constable (and/or his colleagues mr raja and mr Karupiah) were also guilty of providing false information to an auditor.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: AS WELL ADVISED, CULPABILITY, IF ANY, ON ANY ACCUSA-
REGARDS “mr Brown-constable subsequently attempted to cover up what he had done by fal-
TION, INNUENDO OR MISDEMEANOUR CAN BE LAID AT MY DOOR, AND MY DOOR ONLY - AS
sifying and/or concealing information required for accounting purposes, knowing full well that the information actually provided in the service charge accounts was (to quote the theft act
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument