Embedded Files
Facebook data on 533 million users
Facebook data on 533 million users
dumped on hacking forum
dumped on hacking forum
The company says this is old data previously reported in 2019
The company says this is old data previously reported in 2019
06 April 2021
In a major breach of privacy, personal details of over half a billion Facebook users have been leaked online on a hacking forum.
The exposed data reveals personal details of more than 533 million Facebook users from 106 countries, including over 44 million records on users in Egypt, 39 million in Tunisia, 32 million in the US and 11 million in the UK.
It includes their full names, phone numbers, gender, date of birth, location, relationship status and email address.
A Facebook spokesperson told Business Insider "this is old data that was previously reported on in 2019".
In 2019, the phone numbers of over 419 million Facebook users (initially) were discovered online in an unsecured online database. The database included the real name, country and gender of many users. It was found that the hackers were able to steal users' data by exploiting a Facebook vulnerability, which enabled anyone to discover the phone number linked with a Facebook ID or vice-versa. The issued was fixed by Facebook in 2019.
Earlier this year, Alon Gal, co-founder of cybersecurity firm Hudson Rock, claimed that a hacker was using a Telegram bot to sell Facebook users' phone numbers, or the Facebook IDs linked with a known phone number. The bot allowed users to query the database for a fee of $20, enabling them to find the phone numbers linked to a very large portion of Facebook accounts.
On Saturday, Gal disclosed that the entire dataset is now available for free on a hacking forum, making it widely accessible to anyone with basic data skills.
While data breaches are initially sold for a high price in private sales, they are later commonly sold for less before being released for free by hackers as a way of earning reputation within the hacker community.
Business Insider said that it verified several records by matching phone numbers of known Facebook users with the IDs listed. Some records were confirmed by testing email addresses from the data set in Facebook's password reset feature.
Troy Hunt, CEO of haveibeenpwned.com, said in a Tweet that Facebook users will soon be able to check whether their details were included in the leak.
This is not the first time that personal details of Facebook users' have been leaked online.
In 2013, Facebook admitted that it had exposed six million users' private phone numbers and email addresses to unauthorised viewers. The company said that a technical bug was to blame for the data breach.
In 2012, Facebook disclosed a breach that saw hackers exploiting a bug in Facebook's code that impacted 'View As', a feature that enables people see what their own profile looks like to someone else.
This enabled the attackers to access users' authentication tokens and steal personal details of hundreds of thousands of users.
The problem with this whole situation is that in a vacuum of information, people speculate. Facebook needs to make a clear statement on the data that’s in broad circulation; when it happened, where it came from and what’s in it. Without that, confusion and speculation reign https://t.co/zIiaCTQNJV
— Troy Hunt (@troyhunApril 5, 2021
COMMUNICATIONS CHANNEL OPENED 6 APRIL 2021 17:28
BY SIMON HOBBS
From: Simon Hobbs <Simon.Hobbs@freeths.co.uk>
Subject: Triad Group Plc and Others -v- Mira Makar
Date: 6 April 2021 at 17:28:04 BST
NOTIFICATION TO CREST AND THEIR STATUTORY AUDITOR PWC
BY 30 AUGUST 2017
CREST CHAIRMAN TOOK SERIOUSLY: OPERATIONS TEAM
REQUESTED THREE HOUR CONFERENCE
their issue: Sharecentre did AML on 4,500 TRD shares FRP bought for cash -thereafter none as the phantom shares were manufactured and credited
CREST members are relied upon for AML checking and CREST does none
In 1998 it became mandatory for listed companies to offer CREST
This meant that TRD had to vet the entries by Lloyds TSB Registrar
as they were made, to see who was behind them and whether they could be entered. Each month's board pack contained a report of current holdings and a report of changes from the last that were vetted by the board in properly constituted monthly meetings.
The public does not know that CREST does not do money laundering checks. The Bank of England became Supervisor of CREST in September 2014. Its supervision was pooled with that of the PRA. They confirmed they had not started and needed guidance as to what CREST did.
The public release of this document protects Allianz Group Plc Allianz SE (vicarious, see Shell case etc), Triad Group Plc those interested including all ex employees NEB, AJL, AMF
PwC was on notice re Equiniti, had meetings with them, then got into bed with them (revealed by Equiniti whistleblower) .
From: Mira <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Subject: Fwd: RESTRICTED
Date: 30 August 2017 at 16:09:05 BST
To: henry.daubeney@uk.pwc.com
Cc: Mira <mira.makar@btinternet.com>, John Trundle Euroclear Chairman
Apologies, added an extra “r” to address in error and it bounced.
Mira
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mira Makar <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Subject: RESTRICTED
Date: 30 August 2017 at 15:52:57 BST
To: henry.dauberney@uk.pwc.com
Cc: Mira Makar <mira.makar@btinternet.com>, John Trundle Euroclear Chairman
RESTRICTED
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Also: PwC Commercial In Confidence + s.t. statutory confidentiality between me+PwC (my company's auditors, as CEO, Exec Dep Chair, FD March 1996-2006, C&L)
Dear Henry
Thank-you for taking my call yesterday and informing John Trundle.
I was informed at 3pm that Mr Trundle will be phoning me at 4pm. An agreed bullet point summary will be provided to you after.
As Mr Trundle and I are both roughly the same vintage, depending on whether Mr Trundle took time off before Cambridge, our combined typing skills will not be good, so it will really have to be short.
The underlying tragedies are very hard to deal with and have been publicly humiliating for over a dozen years. I wish to concentrate on the mechanics in regard CREST's involvement from April 2017, for reasons to do with respect for the dead and the bereaved, whose identities have been plastered on bill boards including Jersey court and the RNS, so that scavengers can take the pickings, unfettered.
A witness statement from an offender has been filed in court confirming that is what they were doing after the Jersey court website ad. from January 2014.
The intel is all restricted. The organisations concerned have PA's who can access their bosses' emails. A trade is rife in what should have been protected, but in fact used against us to push transactions through CREST, with consequences. Only CREST can spot exactly what happened. At least at this level, I require the utmost confidentiality.
There is an unlimited damages claim for derogatory and defamatory statements v me and my family from 4 November 2006 under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (whistle blowing) made in the name of the company concerned including its supply chain which now includes CREST from April 2017. It is not sufficient to stop the damage. This won't stop unless someone in the chain reveals the details of how they have been unknowingly used, and says they do not want to be caught up further.
CREST does not currently have any advertised route for dealing with this confidentially, expeditiously and respectfully. The anonymity policy CREST has adopted compounds the problems since 2006, as the aggressors have used anonymity as a key instrument and been given the most intimate information about their targets by those who should not properly have them.
In terms of the mechanics, the technique deployed by platform operators is to add an "account number" to shareholder details; give control to third parties to the exclusion of the shareholder; convert to CREST account, such that the number is obsolete; then move to another CREST supplier using nominee name. It is a form of identity theft, with consequences.
Had there been money laundering checks / source of money checks / identity checks at any step, the transactions could not occur.
I am informed in these areas as I led the team building the infrastructure of Abacus global, formerly C&L Jersey, the single biggest off shore trust and fiduciary operation in the world with over £50b under management in 1995. I have been GCHQ supplier, operated List X premises, and MoD trained as security officer, supplying to secret. I have a number of call centre builds under my belt, commercial, telecoms, private banking as well as white label banking.
regards
Mira
Mira Makar MA FCA (Miss)
00 44 (0)7768 610071
http://tinyurl.com/ParliamentaryCommissionBanking
https://tinyurl.com/BIS-INSS-Insolvency16-7-16
http://tinyurl.com/FRC-Enforcement4May2016
http://tinyurl.com/FRC-ClientAssets-FCA-31-7-15
https://tinyurl.com/DefamationLawCommission20-2-15
http://tinyurl.com/Defamation-published-20-2-15
https://tinyurl.com/EuroCommInsolvencyFeb15
https://tinyurl.com/BIS-INSS-Insolvency-28-3-14
http://tinyurl.com/MoJ-FundamentalRights13Jan2014
http://tinyurl.com/HoL-MentalCapacityDec13p1051
http://tinyurl.com/CMA-Auditors24Aug2013
http://tinyurl.com/CompCommAuditors18Aug2013
http://tinyurl.com/BIS-ReformofFRC-Jan2012
http://tinyurl.com/FRCDisciplinaryTribunals
http://tinyurl.com/FRCreCapitalAdequacyDec2011
FRC Disciplinary is 15 September 2012
http://tinyurl.com/Public-INTEREST-CASES-BIS-2011
https://tinyurl.com/FSA-FRC-EnhancingAudit-29-9-10
Court-public on inspection from 18 July 2012
2012 Folio 336 judgment in default of proper return compliant with the rules
http://tinyurl.com/CityTradingStds12Folio336Jan12
http://tinyurl.com/FRP-NOTICE12Folio336-25-2-14
http://tinyurl.com/FRPAdvisory12Folio336-16-11-14
http://tinyurl.com/DMHStallard26-11-14-12Folio336
Court-public on inspection from 27 February 2013
HQ12XO3512 judgment in default of acknowledgment of service or defence
Malicious prosecution 29 August 2006 to 24 August 2012 (date of issue)
Malicious prosecution and retaliation from exposure 27 February 2013 to February 2016
http://tinyurl.com/27-2-13publicBakerTillyUKGpLLP
http://www.tinyurl.com/insurers-risk-9June2011
https://tinyurl.com/AndrewsMrsJ14-12-22RBC-receipt
https://tinyurl.com/AndrewsJ14-12-22RBC-RiderA
https://tinyurl.com/AndrewsJ14-12-22RBC-RiderB
https://tinyurl.com/AndrewsJ14-12-22RBC-RiderC
Released by MM 6.4.21 19.05 further to opening of comms by Simon Hobbs (Freeths LLP)
SHARE-CENTRE
From: Mira <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: RESTRICTED AND PERSONAL CONTAINS MIRA'S PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date: 23 August 2017 at 00:20:36 BST
To: Darren Cornish <Darren.Cornish@share.co.uk>
Darren
That’s better. Please remember you are dealing with normal people, who don’t know the mechanics of how you work. Regretfully by way of observation, there has been so much “process” introduced by wrong use of technology, that many operators have lost sight of substance, powers of attorney etc etc. Indeed Equiniti themselves wrote this am defending “process”!! As a systems supplier to call centres for twenty years, I find it very irritating, because we always focussed on substance and authenticity verifications.
Re voicemails, please preserve them as they will be used.
Re your discussion with your Co Sec, I am glad you have opened a dialogue, although I would have preferred it if you had reverted together so that we could have dealt expeditiously on a conference call. This would have taken ten minutes and would have meant the AGM announced for to morrow could proceed as scheduled, with a true register, without the contamination, that you would have to require Equiniti to remove. There is going to have to be an announcement now and the AGM cancelled, on grounds of a contaminated register.
It is unlikely BDO’s landlord would accept having police called in to vet and block those who believe are shareholders but are not, from entering, together with excluding Equiniti who have a false register and won’t correct it because the wrongdoers had inside help including from the ops director, who, I have been told, deleted the crime reports to him, the board, PwC, Equiniti fraud, dated 12 January 2017, and his email to me at 10 pm promising to ring me the next day to fix. The whistleblower in his office using a mobile phone, told me she has small kids and a new mortgage and does not wish to lose her job. If you have no objection, I shall provide our exchanges to WHISTLE at the FCA, who have the crime file on these events after Martin Wheatley, whose case this is, left. Would this be OK, please?
As explained I was alerted by UKLA Thursday before last to the defamations of me on the RNS. They told me that because TSEG and its sub RNS are private sector companies, I had to go to them to demand they correct their own errors, and, if they did not, I plainly had a cause of action. I have gone to them and the extreme seriousness and complexity has taken all the time since, with prolific evidence called for. They have an overview to the detail since 2005. There is not too much more I can do, practically.
This is relevant to you because ON THE PUBLIC RNS:
1) MY NAME APPEARED
2) MY NUMBER OF SHARES APPEARED (3.25m minus 48 = Share Certificate issued on 25 October 2005 by Lloyds Registrars, rebranded Equiniti in 2007 when sold to US VCs).
3) My shares were those recorded in the stolen share certificate
4) This was the event anticipated in the crime report to Equiniti Martin Wheatley, the Director of the SFO, copied to directors of the Royal Bank of Canada who had stolen it and claimed they had given it to PA, out of the estate of my dead aunt who never owned the shares.
They had made up a trusteeship with them settled by my aunt, and when dead proceeded to dissolve this fake, plastering her name and my family’s on the Jersey court website by January 2014, allowing PA to file a statement saying he was investigating her. I was given access to this file as her trustee and executor
5) This 7.11.14 crime update and flag was added to the fraud file and marking “REFER TO FINANCIAL CRIME” 178/11 10 June 2011. This was to block any interference with the register.
6) Both alerts had been removed without trace they had ever existed by 14 December 2016. The Chair of Triad’s Audit Comm was asked by me to check that there had been no interference. He checked on 15 Dec, confirming none, and I updated prosecutors. In fact there had been. It was covered up from then until I was told very recently.
7) the date 7 April 2017 appears: this is the same date your name appears as nominee, although I had not moved my shares into your nomineeship
8) the number of shares under my name went down per RNS and equivalently up under your name.
9) effectively therefore relying on public RNSs, my holding was split in two, one in my name, one in yours, as, effectively, my nominee. Unless mine went down by the amount yours went up, the register would not add up. You traded on 21 April. The person using your services was not me.
10) only I or my power of attorney registered with the PoA office, can move my shares into a nomineeship. Your source of money verification and know your client checks ought properly to have been carried out on me.
11) technically, for money laundering purposes, I am “your client” because these are my shares, from my proper account moved into your nomineeship. I own the data and records.
12) I have been briefed on “de-materializing” which turns a share certificate into an electronic record. Most identifications disappear. Trading is then electronic and you as nominee are “passive”. Is this what happened here, please? Have you de-materialized a share certificate? Otherwise I fail to see how you could proceed to trade electronically.
13) I have an interest in the share certificate that you “de-materialized”, If it is dated 25 October 2005, has MY NAME is for 3,250,000 shares minus 48 i.e. 3,249,952, issued by Lloyds registrars, or has my Lloyds/ Equiniti identity number (called an account number) 418,705,6A, then it is me and my shares, which I do not want de-mutualized, thank you or traded through your nomineeship. If those you name have persuaded Equiniti (ex Lloyds) to issue a fresh certificate, in their name, you may find an Equiniti share certificate, but the same number of shares and my identity number 418,705,6A, probably dated early April 2017, as I have been told by an Equiniti whistleblower on an unrecorded call, that Equiniti issued a rejection record until another form was completed for a PoA. The result had an illegible signature and a NAME the was blank. This got through.
14 ) If you cannot identify these at all, the only conceivable transaction on 7 April is a purchase from the market. However, the numbers co-incide and I did not sell. There is no RNS recording any purchase.
Your transaction appears as though moving from direct ownership to a nomineeship. Please clarify for me, what FRP turned up with, and why you believe subject to checking, it was theirs not mine. This is difficult not least because of the co-incidence of the numbers, the RNSs and the knowledge they have the Oct 2005 certificate, which was reported on 7 November 2014 (handling stolen goods).
15 ) this needs explaining before the meeting to morrow. Regretfully your spartan info meant that accurate reports could not go to the directors, BDO, BDO security/landlord, registrars attending and the consequences, that false accounts were published may mean that the newly appointed corporate broker may have resigned. I was hoping to avoid this delay.
16 ) My mother and I believe that you should attend to morrow and explain your presence on the register, since FRP has not notified any purchases.
On the figures and RNSs you seem to be nominee for me and allowed trade by FRP, or FRP with PA as its power of attorney. FRP is the buyer on 31 December 2013 of the instruments that pay out on the fraud/dishonesty of PA with collusion of others or others with his connivance. Unless your company disassociates itself it will become public that you have acted with FRP who bought the instrument and were prepared to come onto the register, essentially as me but without my mandate.
That is reputation-ally bad news as this has destabilised a public company in particular a controlling shareholder and made the company’s compliance function look very stupid. Bluntly I do not see you have a choice. I am meeting friends at Baker St before going to 55 Baker St (BDO) before 11 am. As there has been serious wrongdoing inside Equiniti, you would want to dis-associate yourselves.
In any event please answer the questions of how it was that you were persuaded to take on FRP and not, seemingly, realise it was me and proceed to “de-materialize” what was my certificate, whether re-issued or not.
Please give me ID details of what you de-materialized, and whether there is any indicator that FRP was not a shareholder, so I can report to the Equiniti board before the meeting and their on site rep can be ready to explain, with my facts from you.
Please be advised they have used contractors inside Insolvency Service to steal electronic signatures of senior state officials, who were in a different department, so there is a whole history.
You can see this in my final notice against them Nov 14, and DMH Stallard, Nov 14.
17) the police reports are down to you. Police told me via SFO that they had enough in February 2014, when the court released the ID of the judge who allowed them in and matched it to the signature.
Police say that private sector companies must police themselves, as they have staff paid to do it, they are not going to waste resource on it, and, if they don’t, they face the financial and reputational damage consequences - here allowing themselves to be used as a money laundering machine, which FRP has already done through Saville when they put someone else’s name in the Land Reg on my £2m flat in the Barbican they burgled in June 2015, taking my court records, personal financial records, certificates, Triad bank records, computers etc etc.
Savilles immediately provided the ENTIRE FILE to me.
Triad’s new financial adviser and corporate broker has had an unrecorded call with them and they fed him the same falsehood they gave Savilles, whose staff got possession of the flat through contamination of estate officials by those who’d taken the certificate (or copy) Boodle Hatfield, and by telling EDF that they had bought my flat.
EDF has released the transcript to me. Equiniti themselves provided everything that came in until April 2017. Those operating the inside job seem to have been too far in to turn back. Triad directors checked on 15 December 2016 and were told there was no interference which they fed back to me. However from 14 Dec 16, there was.
FRP evidence taken mid April 2015 by Met and at Paddington Green 19 May 15 and City police from Jan 14.
Re prosecutors, the ones with files are:
1) City police (from 1 December 2005)
2) Met police
3) Jersey police
4) Jersey bailiff
5) Jersey and Guernsey FSC
6) Trading Standards
7) OFT / Competition Commission
8) Director SFO
9)FSA / FCA - several supervisors
10) DPP / CPS
11) NCA ex SOCA
12) HMRC
13) police ex UK / crown dependencies
14) gov criminal prosecutors in BIS now BEIS
I look forward to hearing from you as early as possible why you believed FRP was the owner, and what certificate was provided, with any indicator it was mine.
If necessary I could agree a joint approach to Equiniti to see what they did in April 2017, which they give to both of us plus Triad directors. If feasible, we should get this done very early and in any event I very much hope you turn up, as you know there is a problem and you should speak for yourselves. If it can be pieced together very early then maybe just in writing will do.
However it is best on reputational issues to show you are alert and make known you are there or have equipped me with what has happened.
Am shattered. Will crash now and look forward to contact very early.
Kind regards
Mira
On 22 Aug 2017, at 12:56, Darren Cornish <Darren.Cornish@share.co.uk> wrote:
Released by MM 6.4.21 21.45 further to opening of comms by Simon Hobbs (Freeths LLP)
WORKING: DRAFT RELEASED 11.50 am 7.4.21 AS PREPARED FOR CONVENIENCE FOLLOWING OPENING OF COMMS BY SIMON HOBBS (Freeths LLP) 6 APRIL 2021
Attributed to Nicholas Lavender J by Sarah Moore :
"one Alison Lander"
Saturday 21 November 2020
and notified by SM on his behalf to the entire world through Bloomberg and other secret subscription services
Properly reference to AJL ought to be her true status
this is recorded below as employee of international group of companies (here Netherlands) owned by Abacus
"One Alison Lander" is included in papers filed in C of A adding to those already there (objecting to Sarah Moore's dissemination of embargo'ed and private materials for which she did not have a single person's agreement not did she respect MM's PRIVACY designation, available to TRD and those interested). using "judgments" to announce something to the whole world for some unstated purpose.
AJL is ex-employee of "Naxos" or nickname "Headway Holland", reporting to Ken Booty, MD Headway, Clients incl ESA, ESTEC, Vega, Triad Group Plc, prospects incl UK Hydrographics with TRD and Praxis, phase 1 £12m, of £30m, HQ06XO1803. AJL and AMF are Headway shareholders. They are disadvantaged by FRP's carrying on, on the Headway register April 2016 removing Abacus, trustees of late SSR, and principal shareholders on float, who financed AMF from inception by prefs etc.
Property settled by the late Siham Sami Raouf, Order of the Republic, Under Secretary of State Ministry of Aviation Egypt, Director General Egyptair (non domiciliary), client of Allen & Overy LLP from 1995, and Abacus (C&L Jersey), where her brother was already tax client as then UK resident, non domiciliary: Partner Clive Tulloch from January 1987, adviser to TRD staff on their share options, what to do efficiently with their gains, adviser on settling and limiting damage from PAYE and IR35 investigation and limiting consequential damage (Yvonne Dixie, payroll, data and tax offences, forging statutory accounts in dormant with no bank account or employees), TRD adviser 2005.
Communication Dec 1994/Jan 1995.
Pre cursor to SSR 1995 letter of wishes and deed of settlement, indicating investment for benefit of Zabaleen, creative recycling of waste to usable product, having collected it for free.
Zabaleen
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/12/no-rules-in-this-job-cairo-waste-wars-pit-sorters-against-startups-abaleen-garbage-people
Guardian 12 April 2019
ref at the end is to Christmas gammon bought in London. See JCR second or third witness statement filed in 2006, recording that he has assumed responsibility for buying this gammon each year.
Statements filed in court 2014 by those referred by RPC, who hired DMH Stallard belatedly in March 2014, stated FRP wanted to be put in place of MM as "principal beneficiary" i.e. chief worker, indemnified.
Thus the non dom wealth generated for the benefit of the creative enterprises of the Zabaleen and others would come to them or be dissipated under their control: reward: AIM 3/20 - all they had to do was allow bust BT to re-cycle as RSM for which BT Corporate Finance rebranded RSM gave endorsement, Nick Carter Pegg supported, and Mazars (Markel) laundered.
The above is what Nicholas Lavender refers to as "one Alison Lander", direct reference to "fraud and dishonesty" of the RSA and AVIVA self certified instruments, already within the jurisdiction of the C of A (summer 2008, RJW) County Court (Feb 2006) Companies Court (Sept 2005) SCCO (2008) QBD (June 2006) Chancery (Dec 2010) Commercial (July 2010) Jersey (2013). Heard and reheard ad nauseam. There was no proposal to RSA (ought to have been under rules), instrument nr 8 was hidden from the IPA including by Willis, and PKF Littlejohn (Markel) auditor of the IPA had to notify re IPA's balance sheet 31 Dec 2013 and giving annual renewal to those who had bust it.
Burges Salmon (contract with Allianz) strike out and CRO by court of its own motion 30 July 2007. Heard 19.11.12 2012 Folio 336 with request for s3 injunctive relief. Heard Haddon Cave LJ 10.8.12 QBD on referral from Mast Leslie.
"Notification to the entire world" was used by HH Judge Seymour QC to shift "blame" from Michael Taub (business acceptance) ("complied with firm's procedures")
to someone else.
The device deployed was Triad Group Plc's preliminary announcement of full year results (31.3.05) on 26 July 2005. This is an announcement of TRD, not any one person.
This was deftly turned into a personalised statement by HH Judge Seymour: "...prompted......John Rigg to announce to the world on the RNS etc"
By this mechanism Michael Taub was let off the hook from the omission to report on PwC and lack of independence, and JR "blamed" for PwC's exit. BT (partners sanctioned by exclusion by ICAEW from 7.1.05) were aligned with PwC.
Principle: The statement "was not me, gov" can only be made to stick if the finger is pointed elsewhere.
The true position is in HQ12XO3512 re Taub and Trading Standards powerpoint 2 January 2012, the genesis of 2012 Folio 336. HQ12XO3512 is damage mitigation for ALLIANZ.
Beneficiary is ALLIANZ GROUP PLC, which wrongly turned down MM indemnity in 2007. This locked MM and Burges Salmon, with whom ALLIANZ also has a contract, to carry on trying to survive until permission on 18 Feb 2010.
This is automatically added, without anyone doing anything beyond not missing deadlines and preserving the PRIVACY status (from Dec 2012).
The documents used by RPC, infiltrators of MM's appeal by secretly paying £200 on 5.3.10 ( Catherine Elford identified by C of A 26.8.11) to pretend to be a "respondent", are to do with what RPC and Boodle H did with NEB and Equiniti in TRD's name.
In 2011, NEB wrote in TRD's name also referring to Judge Seymour letting Mark Harwood off the hook, formally locking TRD, AMF and himself into 2009/1711. Formerly recorded knowledge of 2009 "judgment" and entering arena 2009/1711. Last sent for listing with back stop 30 June 2012 by Chancellor and Presiding Judge Andrew Morritt, and when day came and went, sent to President QBD, later LCJ. Fully receipted. Trumped by HQ12XO3512.
EXTRACT FROM COURT OF APPEAL 2009/1711 relating to appeal not yet heard for which permission was granted 18 February 2010:
Correct Title:
Mira Makar v Judgment of HH Judge Richard Seymour QC 17 July 2009
That is because:
there is no claimant or claim form for QBD , HQ08XO2310
file and number automatically triggered by receipt of paper file from Mayors & City County Court 7MY03183 opened at request of Cumberland Ellis (Wedlake Bell)
This was after Eric Smith BT credit controller told Michael Taub appointed expert that he needed to deal with MM's letters first , February 2007 and April 2007.
These were heard heard, marked up and relied on by Rupert Jackson LJ in granting strong permission (judge's own file has been provided, but counsel insisted it be returned to Court of Appeal - transcript hearing obtained but not brilliant quality albeit adequate).
11.4.07 letter required return of TRD files whether or not assurance report provided. Created with Abacus Burges Salmon Egan Roberts (incl Chilterns)
7MY031803 Mayors & City County file cover and entire contents destroyed save for 15 disparate pages, notified by Joseph Bonaparte early 2016, and HMCTS SECURITY. JB moved from case management to Listings where he was responsible for Listings in 2020 at least, including before and after
The accounting year of Triad commenced on 1 April each year. In the year ended 31 March 2005 the auditors of Triad were PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"). On or before 26 July 2005 PwC informed the board of directors of Triad that its report on the financial statements of Triad for the year ending 31 March 2005 would include a statement that, in its opinion, proper accounting records had not been kept in all respects. That prompted the Chairman of the board of directors of Triad, Dr. John Rigg, to announce to the world, via the London Stock Exchange Aggregated Regulatory News Service, on 26 July 2005 the expected qualification to the accounts of Triad. The material part of the announcement was in these terms:-
"The reduction in cash during the period reflects the increase in working capital requirements created by the rapid growth from the resourcing business, together with slippage in credit collection performance. The auditors have indicated that they are likely to issue an unqualified opinion on the financial statements. Their report will however include a statement regarding accounting control issues in the sales ledger function of the resourcing business for a period of several months during the year and therefore that, in their opinion, proper accounting records as required by section 221 of the Companies Act 1985 have not been kept in all respects."
However, in fact, in its auditors' report dated 29 September 2005 PwC approved the accounts of Triad for the year ended 31 March 2005 without any qualification.
By a letter dated 5 April 2006 to the directors of Triad PwC resigned as auditors. However, the letter of resignation included:-
"In accordance with Section 394 of the Companies Act 1985, we confirm that there are no circumstances connected with our resignation which we consider should be brought to the notice of the shareholders or creditors of Triad Group plc."
Following her dismissal, Miss Makar, by a claim form dated 6 March 2006, commenced proceedings ("the ET Proceedings") against Triad in an Employment Tribunal claiming compensation for unfair dismissal. Attached to the claim form were lengthy "Grounds of Complaint". They ran to some 104 paragraphs set out in 38 single spaced A4 pages. For present purposes it is sufficient to set out the sections of the "Grounds of Complaint" entitled "Summary of claims" and "Overview":-
"Summary of claims
1. In summary, the Claimant's claims are as follows:
1.1 Unfair dismissal;
a. Dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA"), in that the reason or principal reason for the dismissal was that the Claimant had made protected disclosures.
b. Dismissal was automatically unfair under section 98A ERA.
c. Dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair under section 98 ERA.
1.2 Detriment other than dismissal on the grounds of protected disclosures (s.47B ERA).
2. For the avoidance of doubt the claim does not include a claim of breach of contract, and the Claimant reserves the right to claim in respect of breach of contract in another forum.
Overview
3. By way of overview, the Claimant was the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of the Respondent company.
4. Towards the end of 2004 she became aware of certain apparent financial irregularities, and engaged two professional firms, including a firm of accountants, to investigate.
5. Shortly after these firms came across evidence of irregular accounting, they were stood down by the Respondent, and the Claimant was suspended in the midst of her investigation.
6. Although the Claimant continued as a main board director, she was denied access to any of the underlying financial accounts.
7. Upon hearing evidence of the problems she had prepared reports for the Respondent's Audit Committee, who failed to pursue matters appropriately.
8. Consistent with her fiduciary obligations as a director towards shareholders, she sought to brief the Respondent's stockbrokers so that they could advise the board on whether there was an obligation to communicate the financial uncertainty to the market.
9. During the course of this meeting, she was suspended as Chief Executive and was removed from the room.
10. At the time of her suspension, no specific reason was given for her suspension.
11. She remained suspended for over ten months. Disciplinary hearings were commenced over nine months after she was suspended.
12. Two months after she was suspended, she was told an investigation had been concluded into her suspension. She was not fed back the results of this investigation, and continued to be suspended. No reason was given for her continuing suspension.
13. Because of her continuing legal obligations as a director, the Claimant continued to seek access to underlying financial accounts of the Respondent, without success. Finally, when she commenced litigation seeking an Order for disclosure of documentation to which she was entitled, she was dismissed as an employee and a director. The grounds of dismissal expressly included the fact that she had made disclosures which amount to protected disclosures."
The effect of the summary of the claims of Miss Makar set out in her "Grounds of Complaint" seems to have been that she was contending that she had been dismissed because she had disclosed outside Triad matters which it was asserted it was in the public interest to disclose – what is popularly called "whistle-blowing".
Mr. Taub must have been approached by Mr. Makar on or before 24 August 2006, for on that day his secretary sent a circular e-mail to all partners in the Firm in these terms:-
"Michael Taub has received enquiries regarding a potential engagement involving the following parties:
Triad Group Plc
Vega Group Plc
Mira Makar
PWC (specifically in relation to the above names)
Please let me know as a matter of urgency, if you are aware of any ethical or other professional reason why we should not accept these instructions, or if you have in the past three years had any dealings with, or are otherwise connected with any of the above parties.
Please note that negative responses are not required."
The circulation of an e-mail in similar terms seems to have been a regular practice within the Firm when the question of possibly taking on a new client arose.
MM note 7.4.21 12.45 pm. Under ICAEW bye-laws independence verification is mandatory or members are debarred from reporting, as well as reporting the source of lack of independence. That means "going through protocol" as surrogate is statute barred.
Triad Group Plc has expertise of such fro 1995, as builder of Abacus Global systems when POCA was developing working from draft law. Abacus proprietors accepted that they carried criminal liability for verifying source of money, even if it came from a chain of transactions. In other words it was the result of their enquiries that mattered, not the paper trail of motions.
Seymour:
It does appear that, notwithstanding the existence within the Firm of procedures designed to avoid conflicts of interest or embarrassment in assuming retainers, in this case the involvement, such as it was, of Mr. Harwood and Mr. Newman, with Triad in March 2006 was not, or was not effectively, communicated to Mr. Taub or Mr. White in about September 2006 in response to the circular e-mail dated 24 August 2006 which I have already quoted, and, when that information was effectively communicated at the end of October 2006, there was no clear evidence that the significance of the involvement was assessed.
7 April 2021 13.30 WORKING
MM2Tab21~Ian White matters to be established.pdf May 8, 2011, 8:01 PM by Custodian of Information
MM2Tab21~Ian White matters to be established.pdf May 8, 2011, 8:01 PM by Custodian of Information
90k — on page Resources
Resources > MM2Tab21~Ian White matters to be established.pdf
7 April 2021 13.50 WORKING
HEARD IN QBD 18 MARCH 2011 and 25 APRIL 2011 - PUBLIC -
ADDED TO 2009/1711
INSTRUCTIONS MASTER LESLIE TO MAKE PUBLIC AFTER DISCOVERING FROM APPEAL PACK THAT RPC HAS HIDDEN HQ06XO1803 FROM HIM (£21m) FROM MAY 2008 (year Master Ungley assigned retired)
INSTRUCTIONS ALSO SFO, TO ENABLE PROSECUTORS TO OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER
www.inthepublicdomain.net started accordingly 1 May 2011
anyone entering any court is presumed to have knowledge of everything on this site
important for protective reasons given files destroyed by shredding or being lost or hidden in the Court of Appeal, QBD, County Court and Rolls as well as SCCO (RJW files stolen at time Penrose Foss made off with RPC's with Simon Goldring stage managing a statement, his had been taken, could he copy those of MM please? 17 and 18 July 2012
Tab 00 - 3 April 2011 & 29 June 2010 - Asset backing for litigation funding (Remove)
Tab 01 - 21 April 2011 - public domain information withheld September 2009 to secure interim charging orders (Remove)
Tab 02 - 2006 to 2011 - Regulatory challenge and court proceedings (Remove)
Tab 03 - 2006 to 2011 - Unfunded litigation (Remove)
Tab 04 - 9 November 2007 - Request for pre-action protocol, disclosure and statement of case from Baker Tilly (Remove)
Tab 05 - 9 November 2007 - Disbursements incurred with leading counsel because Baker Tilly did not report (Remove)
Tab 08 - 8 April 2008 - refusal by Cumberland Ellis on behalf of Baker Tilly to mediate (Remove)
Tab 11 - 27 July 2009 - false without prejudice witness statement by David Punt (Remove)
Tab 12 - 28 July 2009 - £466K before VAT incurred by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP and others without any prospect of recovery, auditor Baker Tilly UK Audit LLP (Remove)
Tab 13 - 18 February 2010 - permission to appeal granted by Lord Justice Jackson (Remove)
Tab 14 - 28 July 2010 - confirmation by Kingston Smith, Baker Tilly auditor that litigation risk swap with Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP off balance sheet (Remove)
Tab 15 - 4 October 2010 - report to Kingston Smith in regard to abuse of the court and Baker Tilly's license. Warning that "This time questions will be asked as to why so many knew and nobody did anything about it." (Remove)
Tab 16 - 11 November 2010 - Court of Appeal Chancellor, Sir Andrew Morritt, Lord Justice Hughes and Lord Justice Leveson application to adjourn (Remove)
Tab 17 - 19 November 2010 - Appeal in the Court of Appeal Chancellor, Sir Andrew Morritt, Lord Justice Hughes and Lord Justice Leveson (Remove)
Tab 20 (Remove)
Tab 21 - 7 September 2006 - matters to be established identified by Baker Tilly for its public accountants assurance report in accordance with instructions accepted in August 2006 under Court Orders dated 1 August and 19 September 2006 (Withers LLP) under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2006 (Remove)
Tab 22 (Remove)
Tab 23 - September 2005 - directors costs of serving (£1.2 million) kept out of account by documented agreement between PwC and Allen & Overy LLP. Statutary accounting record withheld by PwC (Remove)
Tab 25 (Remove)
Tab 26 (Remove)
Tab 27 (Remove)
Tab 28 (Remove)
Tab 29 (Remove)
Tab 30 (Remove)
Tab 31 - 26 July 2010 - claim against PricewaterhouseCoopers, Particulars 25 November 2010 that PwC reported on 27 July 2004 without sight of books of prime record and its subsequent resignation without reporting, notified April 2006 (Remove)
Tab 32 (Remove)
Tab 33 - 17 March 2011 - application to vacate hearing on 18 March 2011 (Remove)
Tab 34 - 18 March 2011 - Mira Makar running order for hearing 18 March 2011 Christopher Semken sought to keep off the record together with entirety of Appeal bundle exhibiting his own witnesses' evidence on the existence of creditors and causation (Remove)
Tab 35 - 18 March 2011 - evidence from Christopher Semken, counsel, that interim charging orders should be turned into final charging orders on the basis that there are no other creditors and that agreement between Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP and Boodle Hatfield to a sale of the 29% stake in the Company, the proceeds to pay these lawyers (Remove)
Tab 36 (Remove)
Tab 37 (Remove)
Tab 38 (Remove)
Tab 39 - 3 September 2007 - requirement on Laurence Longe to return files, assist the SFO and FRC and undertake damage mitigation in regard failure of Baker Tilly to provide an independent expert assurance report (assertion based) in regard FSMA 2000 (false accounting and market abuse) (Remove)
Tab 40 (Remove)
Tab 41 - 1 August 2008 - restricted disclosure list produced by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP in defiance of court orders of Master Leslie 31 July 2008 (Remove)
Tab 42 - 22 June 2009 - report to Michael Izza Head of Staff ICAEW of blackmail pretrial (24 June 2009) by Laurence Longe (Remove)
Tab 43 - 28 July 2009 - draft order relied upon by RPC in securing interim charging orders and 25 August 2009 same order sealed but suppressed (Remove)
Tab 44 (Remove)
Tab 45 - 22 December 2010 - Christopher Semken, counsel, responsible for agreement and combined response to Orders and Notice of the Court of Appeal dated 10 December 2010 to invite the C of A to change its mind and to deal with housekeeping and ancilliary matters (Remove)
Tab 46 - 11 January 2011 - Nigel Tristem, National Head of Assurance, Baker Tilly UK Audit, LLP, responsible for varying judgement amount and amount on account of costs trial to nil, and action in regard repair of unlawful procurement and use of interim charges within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006 (Remove)
Tab 47 - 14 April 2011 - Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP responsible for serving statement of truth omitted by them September 2009 (Remove)
Tab 60 - 2007 - 2011 Abuse of Court Reynolds Porter Chaimberlain LLP, Christopher Semkin and Boodle Hatfield (Remove)
Tab 61 - 12 01 02 Breach of Trading Standards, Wragge an Co, Clyde and Co, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP and Boodle Hatfield (Remove)
Tab 62 - Insurers and Risk supporting risk swap (Remove)
Tab 63 - 09 07 28 Christopher Semkin admission cost incurred for reasons of reputation (Remove)
Tab 64 - 05 01 07 End of Baker Tilly ICAEW licence to Audit (Remove)
Tab 64 - 09 07 28 Litigation Risk Swap Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP and auditor (Remove)
Tab 65 - 16 April 2012 (Remove)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse