FINANCIAL FRAUDSTER NEWS INVESTIGATIONS: Barclays Bank Accused of Wilful Contempt of Court – Snubbing Order to Disclose Debtor Accounts Amid Allegations of Funds Laundering
LONDON, UK – 25 July 2025 – Financial Fraudster News Investigations can today reveal a damning exposé: Barclays Bank PLC stands accused of wilfully snubbing a direct County Court Order, deliberately failing to disclose crucial account information related to a debtor and businessman, Mr. Ervis Kastrati. This alleged defiance of a Third Party Debt Order (TPDO) is not merely a procedural oversight; it is a profound act of non-compliance that directly impedes justice and raises serious questions about the Bank's conduct, particularly amidst suspicions of funds laundering.
At the heart of this escalating legal battle is a Judgment Debt of £223,226.15 owed by Mr. Ervis Kastrati to A E Family Trust. Despite an Interim TPDO issued on 16 June 2025 explicitly compelling Barclays to identify and disclose accounts, the Bank has allegedly engaged in a pattern of obfuscation, prompting the Trust to accuse Barclays of breaching its legal obligations and obstructing the recovery process.
The Unfolding Deceit: Barclays' 'Insufficient Details' Claim Debunked
The dispute began when Barclays Bank, in its initial letter dated 8 July 2025, claimed it was "unable to identify a relevant account because we have insufficient details to identify the individual debtor." This assertion, however, was immediately and unequivocally refuted by A E Family Trust.
A E Family Trust, through a robust Witness Statement from its administrator, Zac Kowalski (dated 9 July 2025), provided Barclays with precise and judicially confirmed information that left no room for doubt:
Residential Address: Mr. Ervis Kastrati resided at 36 SACKVILLE CLOSE, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, CB4 2ST, where he held a personal Barclays Bank account.
Business Accounts: Mr. Kastrati also ran EA AUTO CARS LIMITED, which held a Barclays Bank account (Sort Code: 20-17-20, Account No: 73788245) at the same address. Both his personal and business accounts were active before his arrest. The new owners of EA AUTO CARS LIMITED have provided a witness statement confirming no links to this original business account, solidifying its sole connection to Mr. Kastrati.
Crown Court Admission: Crucially, on 2 May 2025, at Peterborough Crown Court, Mr. Ervis Kastrati pleaded guilty to unrelated offences. During his mitigation, he explicitly stated, in recorded evidence, that funds loaned from A E Family Trust were recoverable and were specifically placed in Barclays Bank accounts. This direct admission, made in open court, directly contradicts Barclays' claims of "insufficient details."
Specific Transactions: The Trust provided evidence of a deposit on 4 September 2023 linking Mr. Kastrati to the EA AUTO CARS LIMITED account, and a £7,000 internet bank transfer on 6 June 2023 from another Barclays account (Sort Code: 20-17-19, Account No: 40391522) controlled by Mr. Kastrati to the EA AUTO CARS LIMITED account. The Trust alleges that moneys loaned to Mr. Kastrati match transfers found in these Barclays Bank accounts.
The Restraint Order: A Shield or a Smokescreen for Non-Disclosure?
In a subsequent letter dated 24 July 2025, Barclays Bank belatedly acknowledged the existence of a Restraint Order dated 10 October 2024, issued in favour of the Crown Prosecution Service, requiring Mr. Kastrati's accounts to be "Restrained/frozen." Barclays claims this order prevents it from "secur[ing] the funds" as required by the TPDO.
However, A E Family Trust vehemently argues that while a Restraint Order may prevent the securing or transfer of funds, it does not absolve Barclays of its fundamental legal duty to identify and disclose the existence, balances, and transaction histories of the accounts held by the Judgment Debtor. The Bank's belated disclosure of this Restraint Order, coupled with its continued refusal to provide specific account details, raises serious questions about its transparency and diligence in complying with court orders.
Wilful Contempt of Court and Obstruction of Justice
The Interim TPDO (N84 form) explicitly states under "What the third party will do" (Page 2): "If the third party is a bank or building society it must search for all accounts held solely by the judgment debtor and, within 7 days of receiving this order, give details of them to the court and the judgment creditor, stating whether it holds sufficient to cover the total shown and, if not, the amounts in them."
A E Family Trust contends that Barclays' repeated failure to provide the identified account details, despite overwhelming and judicially confirmed evidence, constitutes a clear and wilful breach of this fundamental obligation. This is not merely a failure to cooperate; it is an alleged act of contempt of court and a direct obstruction of justice, impeding the Trust's lawful right to recover its debt.
The Trust's administrator, Zac Kowalski, has stated his "strong belief that the evidence found, particularly the specific account details and transaction information, links Barclays Bank PLC to the alleged laundering of funds related to the breach of contract by Mr. Kastrati." The Bank's persistent inability to "identify" these accounts, despite the precise information now provided and Mr. Kastrati's own admissions, "raises serious concerns about the Bank's internal processes and potential complicity."
Looming Showdown: Joinder Application and Court Hearing
A E Family Trust is now poised to make a joinder application to the County Court at Peterborough, seeking to add EA AUTO CARS LIMITED as a Second Defendant. This is deemed necessary to ensure all relevant parties are before the Court, enabling the proper tracing and recovery of the Judgment Debt from assets intertwined with this entity.
The next hearing in this matter is scheduled for 2:00 PM on 28 July 2025 at the County Court at Cambridge. Barclays Bank's expressed desire to be excused from attendance is deemed "entirely unacceptable" by the Trust, which insists the Bank's presence is "vital to address the new details, provide a full account of its efforts to identify the Debtor's funds, and potentially explain its prior inability to locate these accounts."
This case highlights a disturbing alleged pattern of a major financial institution actively hindering the judicial process. Financial Fraudster News Investigations will be closely monitoring the upcoming hearing, as the Court considers Barclays Bank's alleged defiance and the implications for the enforcement of justice against powerful entities.
For further inquiries, contact:
Financial Fraudster News Investigations Team
@FraudsterNews or @therealfinancialfraudsternews or @the_real_FFN
