Page 21 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 5:CHRONOLOGY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
 obscure the audit trail of the transfer in both his Nat West Bank account and the
Barclays Woolwich account.

80. The main material difference in outcome from the convolution is that the processed
cheque was not made payable to “APMS and LPJS Siggers” - as would be expected and
was essential if the money was qualified for later withdrawal - but to “Barclays Bank
60
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 underdog .
63

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 . APMS told LPJS, that since the £500,000 was in the joint mortgage
64
account (to which he remained a signatory) 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 it .
65
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 . He knew it was safe from APMS’s clutches and could not be withdrawn by
66
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 . For reasons LPJS did not understand at the time, the Claimant was
67
unconcerned . LPJS suggested that she and the Claimant should agree that the £500,000
68
69
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 after 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 gift, that LPJS’s relationship
st
with the Claimant was “permanent” and reduced the life-time maintenance due from APMS accordingly
66 APMS’s block was irrelevant and the Claimant knew it
67 And had already taken money in this way
68 because he had blocked the account from the outset
69 Subject to taking legal advice
Bates Number Bates No021 15 | Pa ge