Page 469 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

In the process of carrying out this deceitful charade you committed:
(a) “fraud by false representation” (contrary to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006), - eg by representing that the work was to be carried out by A&R Lawrence;
(b) “fraudbyfailingtodiscloseinformation”(contrarytosection3oftheFraudAct2006)–eg by refusing to disclose details of who had been paid what in relation to the refurbishment work; and
(c) “fraud by abuse of your position” (contrary to section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006) – in that your position (per MHML) as landlord enabled you to exploit your role as a service provider.
You subsequently attempted to cover up what you had done by falsifying 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 1968) “misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular”. In this respect you were guilty of publication of false statements contrary to Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. It is unclear whether the auditor was complicit in this or whether you were also guilty of providing false information to an auditor.
These are not “insinuations” or “innuendos” as you tend to describe them. They are straightforward accusations which are “physical, indisputable, and non-contestable” (to cite your words), supported by written documentation, and which – if we cannot arrive at a settlement - you will be required to answer in both criminal and civil proceedings. As previously stated, I have left aside all the issues which you would dismiss as “petty”, but which the lessees and myself would not.
Mr Raja had originally held himself out as the only authorised spokesman for MHML, but despite his original offer to meet with us as soon as the lease issue had been resolved, he has now reneged on that commitment, and has made clear that he is not prepared to do so. Therefore I am willing to meet with you, as you have requested. But once only, and solely for the purpose of discussing with you in good faith (a) your rebuttal (if you can provide one) of the evidence cited above, and (b) the further information required below and (c) how best to resolve the dispute between us.
Information required
You have offered to meet our further information requirements in a meeting, provided only that you are given adequate time to prepare. We will agree to that, and the information we need is as follows:
1. I would like to understand the process by which the audited service charge accounts for 2014 and 2015 were reached with your fellow directors and with Pemberton Professionals. To what extent did they review the relevant documents and records? Did your fellow directors understand and approve the fact that you would carry out and charge for work yourself without advising the other lessees?
2. Your e-mail of 1 June 2014 to Mrs Hillgarth at 12.30 clearly stated that she could imminently expect an MHML dividend of approximately £3,500, payable out of the company’s profit on lease extensions. Since you are reluctant to provide an audit of the MHML corporate accounts, I would be content (as an alternative) for you to take me through the key items of expenditure since that date which have resulted in no dividends being payable – or at least none to Mrs Hillgarth – and MHML’s reserves being reduced to (less than) zero. I would like to understand what these charges were, and who authorised them to be paid.