Author Topic: Summary as far as I can tell  (Read 1996 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

Summary as far as I can tell
« on: March 13, 2014, 11:31:59 PM »
In a different topic John wondered what I thought about his case so I decided to take a look at it. 

First off I am American so I do not know everything about British Law. My understanding of UK Inheritance law is only a broad overview.
Moreover I have not seen the actual indictment or conviction to show exactly which criminal statues John was prosecuted and convicted under.

As far as I can tell John maintains his aunt gifted him property in 1996. The seems to maintain he stole it from her against her will and should have been part of her estate and divided under her will. I would have to see more though to know what their exact assertion are in this regard.  Supposedly his brother and wife testified against him according to the press but again I don't know if this is actually true and what they actually testified to even if they did testify against him.

Next the government maintains he didn't pay the inheritance tax owed and thus is guilty of tax fraud.  So far as I can tell, if someone dies within 7 years of gifting property (including money) the recipient of the gift must pay an inheritance tax if the gift is in excess of the threshold. That threshold was 233,000 pounds at the time his aunt died.  The value of the gift was greater (in excess of 400,00 pounds) so inheritance tax needed to be paid on the excess. Because the death occurred 2 years after the gift tax was due and there was no taper relief. Thus a tax of 40% of the excess was due.

Thus John owed tax and he didn't pay such tax as he should have.  At this time I don't have enough knowledge to say what is required to prove tax fraud. Is anyone guilty and liable to go to jail just for not paying the tax or must it be proved that someone had knowledge that the tax was due but didn't pay it in order for criminal charges to be pursued?  That is a legal question. If knowledge is not required then it makes any inquiry into whether John knew of the duty to pay the tax moot.

Some of John's criticisms are over the characterization he stole the money from his aunt. Much of the complaints I have seen though are directed at what he says are lies related to his extradition.  There does seem to be problems with claims made about him fleeing justice. The extradition was apparently wrongly handled.

It is unclear to me though how any ruling in this regard would undo the actual convictions.  I don't know enough about it as far as whether this could vacate the convictions.  In the US it wouldn't be a basis to do so, you have to attack the convictions on their own ground.

Does anyone have more on the precise laws at issue in the case regarding the main criminal charges?  What about the testimony of the witnesses?

 
 




“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline John

Re: Summary as far as I can tell
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2014, 09:00:24 AM »
Thank you showing an interest and more importantly, taking the time to study the information available.  I find it very helpful to have someone take a fresh and unbiased look at the case.  You might not be aware of this but one of the anomalies of Scots Law is that I am prevented from publishing actual statements.  This does not unduly concern me as I do not live in that jurisdiction but given future legal submissions by me I feel obliged to comply. That said, and bearing in mind that the case is still live, I will endeavour to provide whatever I can.

The first point I must draw your attention to is that the date of transfer 'under UK law' is March 1991.  As my aunt passed away in June 1998, the seven year rule was therefore satisfied. I will elaborate on this in a future post but I can say at this point that the High Court of Appeal in London ruled some time ago and since my case that the date of transfer for Tax Revenue purposes is taken as the date a person intimates the transfer and not the date of the actual transfer.  This ruling thus confirmed my own assertion at trial which the former Inland Revenue, the Scottish prosecutor and the Sheriff failed to accept.  In essence they were in error resulting in the jury, which was completely bamboozled by this point, being wrongly directed.

The second point I must make is to remind you of the timeline involved.  My aunt passed away in June 1998 and the first intimation that I received of any tax inquiry was in April 2000.  My brother was invited by letter dated 19 April to attend an interview with Revenue officers in order to discuss our late aunts estate and he was asked to bring me along. I remember this date very well as our mother passed away that very morning.  Regardless, we both attended a few days later and were interviewed separately.  No arrangement was made to have any further meetings and as far as we both were concerned that was an end to it.

I heard nothing more until 5 August 2003 when three plain clothed officers from the Spanish National Police called at my office in Spain and asked me to accompany them to their local office.

The Inland Revenue were well aware of the transfer as early as 1996 by virtue of my late aunts annual tax returns but failed to respond or query the situation. They were also informed of the offshore status of the Company which then owned the portfolio, again they made no comment.  There was no secrecy, no intention to misinform.

 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 09:32:12 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: Summary as far as I can tell
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2014, 09:54:10 AM »
The third point relates to my late aunt and her wishes.  My aunt's husband was a wealthy farmer and fell ill at Glasgow Airport after returning from holiday, he died in the operating theatre later that day.  The tax liability on his estate alone was around £450,000 but since his estate was in Trust the tax would not be paid until my aunts death.  My aunt was horrified when she found out that the liability on her own substantial estate could be the full 40% without any discount since the inheritance tax allowance would be applied to her late husbands estate.  There is another issue here relating to the involvement of the Bank of Scotland who were the trustees in Mr Paul's estate but I will post this separately to show people why they should never trust a bank.

To get back to the main point, my aunt was so concerned that her estate could be eroded that she immediately sought advice.  She was advised to put her own assets in trust and so it was commenced in March 1991.

My aunt originally wanted to split her estate between me and my brother but she later changed this and excluded my brother because of his behaviour.  The malicious allegation created and promoted by the COPFS that my brother was defrauded is false, he has since made statements confirming this fact.

A point worth mentioning at this stage is that the defence team which represented me at trial only had a week to prepare.  I was held so long in custody having been denied bail because of the lies told by Crown Deputes that the case was in danger of running out of time.  Thus I was denied the witnesses and documents which I requested in my defence.  These witnesses will now give evidence in forthcoming legal actions.
 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 10:13:51 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Summary as far as I can tell
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2014, 04:38:01 PM »
Being given only 1 week to prepare for the case is a big issue.  How could your attorney interview the people your aunt spoke to for financial advice and get them to testify in such a short period? 

Who was the beneficiary (beneficiaries) of the trust she established in 1991?

Your attorneys definitely need to speak with all those financial advisors.  That is really the biggest issue of the matter.  If she did transfer the assets prior to the 7 year period then that pretty much kills the entire basis of the investigation and prosecution.  That is the heart.   

Depending on the statute of limitaitons you might also have a claim against the lawyer who reported you. That would definitely be an ethical violation in the US. 

Unfortunately because of the time that passed many of the records were probably destroyed. 
 

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline John

Re: Summary as far as I can tell
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2014, 01:18:11 AM »
Being given only 1 week to prepare for the case is a big issue.  How could your attorney interview the people your aunt spoke to for financial advice and get them to testify in such a short period? 

Who was the beneficiary (beneficiaries) of the trust she established in 1991?

Your attorneys definitely need to speak with all those financial advisors.  That is really the biggest issue of the matter.  If she did transfer the assets prior to the 7 year period then that pretty much kills the entire basis of the investigation and prosecution.  That is the heart.   

Depending on the statute of limitations you might also have a claim against the lawyer who reported you. That would definitely be an ethical violation in the US. 

Unfortunately because of the time that passed many of the records were probably destroyed.

Part of the problem we faced was that we didn't know what sort of garbage the Crown was going to allege so couldn't properly prepare a defence.  The prosecution are supposed to discuss this with defence lawyers in advance of the trial so that both sides have an opportunity to call relevant witnesses, that didn't happen.  My wife and son were originally designated as defence witnesses but a former lawyer whom I later sacked gave them over to the Crown to save on the cost of bringing them over from N Ireland.  This had the effect that the Crown could speak to them and we couldn't, this in itself created a us and them atmosphere which was very obvious at the trial.  I gave my lawyers a list of several witnesses but not one was ever called.  One such witness I discovered was on the Crown list of witness which was the next best thing but he was excused by the Crown because of claimed ill health.  Another scam to deny the defence witnesses.  When all was done and dusted I ended up with no witnesses at all yet the Crown had over a dozen and even brought one from the Isle of Man.

One of the tactics used by the Crown was to try and discredit me in the eyes of the jury.  They went out of their way to claim that I had neglected my aunt, left her alone and destitute.  In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.  My aunt had a sizeable income from her late husbands estate which by the way I had managed to get the bank to increase.  As I lived 50 miles from her and was working full time I arranged with Social Services for a home help to call three times a week and to accompany her shopping on Fridays. I would call with her whenever I could, usually at the weekend and my eldest son then 15 would stay with her regularly.  Indeed, it was on one of these visits on Sunday, 7 June 1998 that my wife and myself found my aunt dead in bed.  Again, had we known that this despicable tactic was going to be used by the Crown we could have called her home helps and her GP to testify on my behalf but again this was denied to us.

You mention documents being destroyed and yes, when my aunt passed away in 1998 I arranged the house clearance and burned many old documents not realising that they were going to be needed another six years down the line.  I did however keep a document intimating her intention to effect the transfer offshore. As this document was held in N Ireland I arranged for it to be faxed to my lawyers and registered as an exhibit, the original was sent over by post.  When it came to the trial the prosecutor refused to allow the original to be used in evidence even though my attorney had it in court with him.  The Sheriff later criticised the photocopy when addressing the jury making an issue of the fact that it was 'just a photocopy'!

I was not involved in my aunt's affairs in 1991 but I do recall my aunt calling at my house to have some documents witnessed by my mum (her sister) who was visiting us from N Ireland at the time.  My problem in later years was that I did not know who had advised my aunt other than the Bank of Scotland Trustee Dept who had management of her financial affairs.  She was really angry with them after their dealings in her late husband's estate.  The year before she died my aunt decided that she wanted to do some improvements to her home and requested a capital advance of funds from her late husbands estate as was her right under the terms of his will but they refused to give her a single penny.  Notable however that six months after my aunts death the bank sent a cheque to the Inland Revenue for £405,000 in order to 'protect their position'!   You couldn't make it up if you tried.

My aunt had no children of her own but my brother and myself stayed with her regularly while growing up.  It was my aunt who persuaded me and my wife and two young sons to emigrate to Scotland to be near to her in 1987.  We were a young family struggling to pay a hefty mortgage at a time when interest rates were very erratic. My aunt helped me to pay this on several occasions, she also bought a car for both me and my wife. She took me and the boys on holiday to Africa on four separate occasions between 1991 and 1995. She was also very generous to my mum and my brother whom she set up in a sheep farming project back home in N Ireland.  It was not entirely unexpected therefore that in 1995 my aunt indicated that she was handing over entirely to me before she got any older. In terms of what she had already told me I arranged for the portfolio to be properly located in an offshore Trust in the BVI.  It was being planned even then that we would purchase a home abroad at some stage where she could stay with us.  Some months later she completed the arrangements and later again in November1996 granted me Power of Attorney over her remaining affairs which allowed me to intercede on her behalf with the Bank of Scotland. She also made a new will installing me as her Executor.  She invited her younger brother who had always been close to her to visit on a day that she knew that I too would be there and confided in him what she had done.  He is a crucial witness, denied to me during the trial but fully on board at this moment in time.  It is worthy of note that had my aunt survived a few more years these issues would not have arisen.

This entire case started out as a means whereby the Inland Revenue could set tax precedent, I discovered this following a House of Commons debate when the case was mentioned.  The tax issue was so weak that the IR persuaded the Scottish prosecutor to pursue an embezzlement and fraud case against me so they could spin it into something it never was.  Thus the malfeasance of public officials claim.

I welcome questions in relation to any of this as I feel the time is right to put it all into the public domain.








« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 11:16:30 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.