Page 171 - Combined file Solheim

URGENT
Note for Marina Faggianato for the round table meeting
Confidential in contemplation of proceedings

 MJC believes such generosity would be out of character but contends it was a “gift”-
motivated by self-interest to hide the AIG compensation of £525k+ from KN, to
defraud Diamond Insurance into settling a duplicative £2million personal accident
4
claim and to avoid prosecution for perjury; Page | 2

 However, both cases satisfy all the conditions of a gift;

 Mr Solheim’s intentions at the time of gifting are determinative and his subsequent
behaviour substantiative. They were to hide the AIG compensation and thereby
defraud Diamond Insurance by:

o Manipulating the initial transfer from his NAT WEST bank account to obscure
its true destination. If the payment had been processed in the normal way, his
statement would have shown a transfer to LPJS whereas it shows a cheque
number but no beneficiary. The cheque is made payable to Barclays Bank PLC
and not to LPJS or Barclays Woolwich;

o obscuring the source of the funds in LPJS’s BARCLAYS WOOLWICH account;

and thereafter disassociating himself from it by refusing to create any written record or
to give evidence in LPJS’s Final Hearing (when under honest circumstances it would
have been in his overwhelming self-interest to do so);

 His attitude changed immediately after Diamond Insurance settled his claim (and the
risk of his exposure was removed). Then, he could not say often or loudly enough
that the £500k had been a loan from the start and that he wanted it back secured
against Nutley Place;

 After Mr Solheim’s retained Dawson Hart, the “loan” became an “investment in
property” supposedly evidenced by freshly remembered – unwitnessed and
undocumented - conversations that amazingly echoed TOLATA compliant verbiage;
how fortunate!

 There was not a word in writing;

 It is irrelevant to Mr Solheim’s mens rea at the time whether some or all of the
insurers would have considered the claims dishonest. His internal state of mind and
paranoia over the transfer and his perjury being exposed was the driving force for
making the gift;

 The “killer email” (Bates No 201) and his subsequent emotional confessions to MJC
prove all the elements of a criminal offence under the Fraud Act;

 Mr Solheim’s pattern is of unilaterally reclassifying gifts as loans (including cars, a
5
horse, his mother’s wedding ring, shares in CRS Aviation Ltd, a Mountfield motor
mower and dental work ): it is what he does;
6

Bates Number Bates No171
E:\COBASCO CURRENT\LOUS DIVORCE\CURRENT PAPERS\Sigve Solheim litigation\Short note for MF rev1.docx