In October 2009 I was instructed by Martin Kenney and Company to review the manner in which the UK firm, Vantis, had conducted themselves in respect of the preservation of evidence at a Montreal branch of the Stanford Investment Bank when they had been appointed receivers earlier in the year. I formed the view that they had seriously damaged the prospects for civil and criminal recovery by reason of their management of the forensic imaging of the SIB computers. I said so in very clear terms in a number of affidavits, citing my own experience in the UK courtroom in various high court cases involving comptuer evidence and by cross referring the affidavits to various academic texts.
My evidence was presented to the High Court in Antigua and was strongly opposed by Mr Marc Kirby, who was the Deputy Director of the then Centre for Forensic Computing at Cranfield University (which has now become Cranfield Defence and Security, the University’s embedded capability at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom at Shrivenham ). In June 2010 the High Court in Antigua came to its decision - and preferred my evidence over that of Mr Kirby. You can read the judgement of the court here.
As a consequence Vantis were removed as liquidators and another firm has been brought in to replace them. Although Vantis said that they would appeal the decision no appeal was filed within the prescribed period and consequently the decision of the High Court of Antigua stands.
At the end of June 2010 Vantis filed for administration.
As a result of appointing new liquidators, in January 2021 following years of concerted work on SIB by Martin Kenney and Company , a trial of their $4 bn (+) negligence/recklessness action against TD Bank in Toronto began. The case was a seminal one in pursuing banks to hold them to account for facilitating fraud. After a 43-day trial that featured testimony from 29 witnesses and thousands of documents, Justice Barbara Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided “there is no basis to conclude that TD Bank knew or suspected” that Mr. Stanford was engaging in fraudulent behaviour. She found that the bank did not owe a duty of care to protect its clients from abuse by company insiders. Justice Conway further concluded that, even if that duty of care existed, TD did not fall below a reasonable banker’s standard of care.
“The bank undertook to provide banking services,” she wrote. “It did not assume the role of a regulator, auditor or insurer.”
The litigation continues - A spokesperson for the plaintiffs, Nick Ryan, said lawyers for the liquidators of Stanford International Bank are considering an appeal and TD continues to face separate legal action in the US.