RPC is alleged to have acted without warranty of authority in proceedings that several High Court judges overlooked to give a veneer of legitimacy in property fraud by submitting documents relied upon by a series of judges that failed in their duty to uphold the law.
Financial Fraudster News Investigations can reveal that a UK law firm known for providing expert advice in regulatory and disciplinary issues has itself breached Civil Procedure Rules to aid and abet the State of Libya in a premeditated and sophisticated fraud perpetrated on the English civil legal system and to cause substantial loss to debt holders, investors and shareholders of Capitana Seas Ltd (UK) owners of Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI).
In late September 2011, following the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime one of the most murderous, divisive and fragmented periods in Libyan history began under a several multi-headed regime with the aim of linking without any credible evidence alleged dispersed Libyan assets back to the fragmented Libyan state cobbled together and endorsed by the western governments called The National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya who sought to recover some of the alleged missing assets under the Gaddafi regime.
A Hampstead property thought to be owned by a member of the Gaddafi family that new evidence now shows was neither purchased by Libyan funds diverted or otherwise and was linked to the son of former Libyan leader Saadi Gaddafi was a media friendly, poster child and the pinnacle of the worst examples of alleged abuse of the Gaddafi regime and its alleged misuse of state funds.
Fraud
RPC was recruited by sole practising solicitor and Libya national Mohamed Shaban who was intent to make a name for himself using any methods to link a member of the Gaddafi regime to the 7 Winnington Road, Hampstead, London N2 which Shaban thought would have been straight forward until he started investigating and quickly found that no links existed and no funds were linked from Libya to 7 Winnington Road, Hampstead, London N2.
Shaban who faces a private criminal prosecution sought to manufacture two different versions of the same story on the basis that Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI) did know and attended proceedings, and if Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI) did not attend proceedings.
Financial Fraudster News Investigations can reveal that between December 2011 and March 2012 Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI) was wholly unaware of the hearing due to RPC being fully aware that by using Appleby Solicitors of the British Virgin Islands to serve court papers in the BVI when all licenced formations agents in early 2011 had refused to act for Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI) leaving no registered office in the BVI and resulting in the management of Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI) to take the decision to domicile the company in the United Kingdom from May 2011 later forming Capitana Seas Ltd in the United Kingdom in 2015.
Financial Fraudster News Investigations has reviewed the sham proceedings at the High Court when Shaban mislead the court that good service had been affected in the BVI at a time when Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI) was domiciled in the England with no one from Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI) attending the presiding judge and the then Mr Justice Popplewell on 9 March 2012 entered a default judgment against Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI) and made an order following submissions by RPC.
Misrepresentation
Financial Fraudster News Investigations can reveal that RPC knew that Shaban had been told by the then chief executive of the Libyan Investment Authority that no link could be established that funds were linked to the Hampstead property and made two statements verified by a statement of truth one stating no evidence existed of Libyan funds being linked to the purchase of the Hampstead property and another stating that it had evidence that funds linked to Libyan did in fact exist. The latter statement was used to fraudulently mislead the High Court and Justice Popplewell.
On the facts reviewed by Financial Fraudster News Investigations RPC willingly played a substantive part in the fraud on the basis that Capitana Seas Ltd (BVI) would not be present and having little regard to civil procedure rule submitted documents to the court fuelled by greed to share the £120,000 of fees it requested from the court in breach of warranty of authority.
With the possibility of a series of private prosecutions looming the fraudsters hiding behind the respectability of RPC will presumably be challenged individually about their conduct in supporting Shaban in the fraud and the individuals and former associates linked to the former murderous Gaddafi regime who represent the lawless state of Libya.
Misconduct
Jonathan Wyles legal director of RPC’s boast’s 30 years' experience defending a variety of professionals facing a range of claims. Defending solicitors, barristers, surveyors, accountants, architects, engineers and brokers, Jonathan also supports insurers on coverage matters and the handling of defence claims. He states is an expert on matters of court civil procedure, which he advises on both internally and externally. Moreover, he professess to be also involved with Court advisory groups. He regularly lectures and writes articles on the professional indemnity market and court rules. He also deals with more than his fair share of litigants in person.
Breach of warranty of authority claims arise in circumstances where a solicitor is alleged to have incorrectly represented that he has authority to act on behalf of a particular client and induces a third party to act in a manner in which he would not have acted had the representation not been made.
So, how has RPC and its legal director Wyles allowed a commission of a breach of warranty of authority in a High Court case founded in fraud where they have filed documents relied upon by the court when they were not authorised to in order aid and abet the commission of fraud.
It appears that despite several judge’s being blind-sided by RPC the Judge's jointly and severally failed to execute their duties and prevent the abuse of the court’s process by the corrupt Shaban, the state of Libyan officials and the RPC employees who negligently failed to exercise the standards aligned with the Solicitors Regulation Authority code of conduct and that of a leading organisation with the size and repute should be seen to display rather than err towards the underlying factor of greed over conscience.
Financial Fraudster News Investigations contacted relevant parties to this article RPC, The Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief and the Ministry of Justice has declined to comment
Breaking News
Article Link:
Sleeping at the wheel of Justice? High Court judges accused of nepotism, negligence and misconduct in ignoring a £10m property fraud founded in a breach of warranty of authority by top law firm RPC
 RPC Court Filings | [Court Seal of RPC Court Filings] | 673 kB |
