No 4 - The Search for Madeleine McCann and Oakley International

[Alice Purjorick]

You have to admit his line of patter was stunning " What I do is so secret I can tell you neither what I am doing nor what I have done" just gimme the money and folk did.
But he was "one of the big boys" according to the tory candidate for Brighton Pavilion.

[stephen25000]

Halligen was hired by Trafigura Beheer BV (Trafigura), a Netherlands-based international commodities trading company, and its London-based law firm, Waterson Hicks.   Do you really think they didn't check him out first?   If it was easy to check out [moderated]s - there wouldn't be any - but the world is full of them.  He swindled them out of over £2million.

But according to you they were not his victims - they were his associates and once it was discovered he was [moderated] they then became ''associates with a criminal contact' but still not his victims.

It must be a source of great puzzlement to you that the courts did not share your opinion - and did regard  the company as the victims of a [moderated] - and subsequently found him guilty of fraud.

I suppose you are saying therefore, the mccanns are very gullible and in fact quite careless in employing crooks ?

[Eleanor]

I suppose you are saying therefore, the mccanns are very gullible and in fact quite careless in employing crooks ?

If you think all of the other people who employed him were careless.

[Benice]

I suppose you are saying therefore, the mccanns are very gullible and in fact quite careless in employing crooks ?

Perhaps you could point to the part of my post that in any way remotely suggests that gullibility and carelessness on the part of his clients (or as you see them - his 'associates with criminal contacts'),  were responsible for Halligen successfully defrauding that company out of £2m.

[G-Unit]

So IYO  folk taken in by a [moderated] are not their 'victims' - they are actually their 'associates' with criminal contacts.

The next time I see a prog. about some old lady/gent having lost all their savings to a conman - I must remember that they are not victims at all - they are 'associates with a criminal contact'.

To say 'Ive heard it all now' is putting it mildly.

Conmen use people's weaknesses to con them. In cases where they separate people from their savings they use the weakness of greed. The victim usually thinks they will have a lot more money in the end. In cases where mature women give money to young men the woman is looking for love, and is easily conned into thinking she's found it. The McCann's weakness was looking for their daughter. This doesn't excuse Brian Kennedy and the directors of the Fund, who should have been more careful.

[Alice Purjorick]

Trafigura sued Halligen for the return of their money. I wonder if "The Fund"/The McCanns/Brian Kennedy (as applicable) will?

[Mr Gray]

Trafigura sued Halligen for the return of their money. I wonder if "The Fund"/The McCanns/Brian Kennedy (as applicable) will?

When did Trafigura sue Halligen...He doesn't seem to have any assets now so impossible to sue

[Benice]

Conmen use people's weaknesses to con them. In cases where they separate people from their savings they use the weakness of greed. The victim usually thinks they will have a lot more money in the end. In cases where mature women give money to young men the woman is looking for love, and is easily conned into thinking she's found it. The McCann's weakness was looking for their daughter. This doesn't excuse Brian Kennedy and the directors of the Fund, who should have been more careful.

You've missed the point I was making G-Unit.    IMO people defrauded by [moderated]s are victims - not ''associates with criminal contacts'' -  which is what Stephen is claiming and which I was disputing.

IMO clever duplicitous conmen such as Halligen would make sure that any 'checks' made on their activities would not lead to anything which could expose them.   Deceiving people is their MO after all and he was very good at doing that.      If it was that easy to expose their criminal activities by the usual checks  - there would be no conmen such as Halligen in the first place IMO.

Do you have the same criticism of all Halligens clients/victims regarding 'being more careful'  - or just anyone McCann related?

Remembering that none of their clients had the hindsight we now have about Halligen  - how do you suggest they could have been more careful?

[Mr Gray]

Conmen use people's weaknesses to con them. In cases where they separate people from their savings they use the weakness of greed. The victim usually thinks they will have a lot more money in the end. In cases where mature women give money to young men the woman is looking for love, and is easily conned into thinking she's found it. The McCann's weakness was looking for their daughter. This doesn't excuse Brian Kennedy and the directors of the Fund, who should have been more careful.

I would certainly agree with that

[faithlilly]

You've missed the point I was making G-Unit.    IMO people defrauded by [moderated]s are victims - not ''associates with criminal contacts'' -  which is what Stephen is claiming and which I was disputing.

IMO clever duplicitous conmen such as Halligen would make sure that any 'checks' made on their activities would not lead to anything which could expose them.   Deceiving people is their MO after all and he was very good at doing that.      If it was that easy to expose their criminal activities by the usual checks  - there would be no conmen such as Halligen in the first place IMO.

Do you have the same criticism of all Halligens clients/victims regarding 'being more careful'  - or just anyone McCann related?

Remembering that none of their clients had the hindsight we now have about Halligen  - how do you suggest they could have been more careful?

Why do you think the McCanns have not taken any action against him Benice ? Or reported him to the police ? As the troll dossier proves the McCanns are rather keen on reporting perceived law-breakers to the police so why not this time ?

[misty]

Why do you think the McCanns have not taken any action against him Benice ? Or reported him to the police ? As the troll dossier proves the McCanns are rather keen on reporting perceived law-breakers to the police so why not this time ?

Just a guess - assuming there was a written contract, the McCanns could not sue if they broke the contract by failing to complete all payments.

[Mr Gray]

As all the troof seekers want to ignore...if halligen has no money...which I suspect...how can he be sued

[faithlilly]

Just a guess - assuming there was a written contract, the McCanns could not sue if they broke the contract by failing to complete all payments.

Halligen had not fufilled the terms of his contract so they would be well within their rights to sue him. So why do you think they didn't take the much easier, and for them cheaper route, of reporting Halligen to the police for fraud ?

[Lyall]

As all the troof seekers want to ignore...if halligen has no money...which I suspect...how can he be sued

Blokes like him always have money. Or property/assets (... somewhere).

[misty]

Halligen had not fufilled the terms of his contract so they would be well within their rights to sue him. So why do you think they didn't take the much easier, and for them cheaper route, of reporting Halligen to the police for fraud ?

Again, a guess - because they were paying Halligen to engage in questionable activities abroad?