Even More on Baer Bank versus Common Decency/Law/Sense (WikiLeaks)

Strangely post on February 29th, 2008
Posted in Freedom Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Internet freedom is up for grabs as it reveals in the WikiLeaks case the porcupine and skunk underbelly of the great world power brokers, otherwise known as crooks, purporting to act in our interests.

The lying judge is having another hearing, see here on enews20 and here at the Guardian.

As they say, there are two sides to every story. Lets look at this side..

Here is the WikiLeaks post on the history of the subject in it’s verbatim entirety, copied below. And here is the Google News Status so far! The bank has really shot itself in the foot. Surely the chickens will come home to roost soon…

I’ve posted each Wikileaks link in it’s entirety also, right below the main article, verbatim, so this post is rather long!!! ;-) If you think this is too long and boring, then hey! That’s why you go to school – so you can see when the bad guys are up to no good!

I’ve also put related pdf files here for download (all open in new window otherwise):


Wikileaks blasts Cayman Islands bank

From Wikileaks

Jump to: navigation, searchEDITORIAL
Thursday February 28, 2008

Bank Julius Baer & Trust — the Swiss-Cayman “private banking” entity currently attempting to sue Wikileaks before US Federal court Justice Jeffery White in San Francisco, today released a press release onto the “Business Wire” vanity wire service. The press release was subsequently picked up by Reuters and other wire services.

Wikileaks responds.

Julies Baer Bank & Trust, from here on in, simply referred to as Baer, claimed in relation to Wikileaks:

“It wasn’t our intention to shut down the Web site”.

This is a lie.

Baer’s requests to the court to do just that are a matter of public record. The only change made by Judge Jeffery White to Baer’s proposed “Wikileaks.org’ takedown order was to cross out the word ‘proposed’! Baer also wrote-for-the-judge a separate order in relation to the documents alone, which was similarly granted. Further, at any time subsequent Baer could have asked the court that its earlier request on the shutdown order be rescinded. It has not done so. While one might be tempted to blame the bank’s Hollywood lawyers Lavely & Singer for running amuck, Baer continues to employ the same law firm. This can only be seen as an endorsement of its conduct.

Baer claimed that:

“This decision was arrived at only after a month long effort on the part of Julius Baer.. to engage the operators of Wikileaks in a dialogue..”

This is a lie.

Wikileaks responded with grace and speed to every one of Baer’s highly irregular (see below) demands and left communication open. A full record is available as:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Full_correspondence_between_Wikileaks_and_Bank_Julius_Baer

The last letter is from Wikileaks. The entire correspondence covers a period of two days. Baer did not submit the correspondence to the court for hearing although it was absolutely central to the issues and Wikileaks was not represented. A clear abuse of process.

Wikileaks is confident about its place in the court of public opinion, but the shadowy Swiss-Cayman “Bank and Trust” Baer, has been allergic to the sun from the very beginning. The first sign of this hyper-sensitivity to light was when its lawyers, Lavely & Singer refused to put their demands in writing — even email — as requested. The second sign was when the same lawyers refused to even identify their client!

Finally Baer’s (as it turned out) lawyers refused to even state what city they would be taking their threatened action in so Wikileaks could arrange representation in that city, instead preferring to abuse process and arrange a hearing where Wikileaks was not represented. But don’t take our word for it — see the submissions to the court by our then pre-litigation council Julie Turner and:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Full_correspondence_between_Wikileaks_and_Bank_Julius_Baer
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._Wikileaks

It is Baer who decided to hire Hollywood lawyers Lavely & Singer, who like to describe themselves as “all-around bad cop for stars from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger to Jim Carrey and Celine Dion.”. It is Baer who stood by these lawyers while they abused process with the assistance of a negligent Judge. It is Baer who has refused to make amends for its misdeeds and it is Baer who is now suffering, and will continue to suffer the consequences.

Baer “has form” in engaging in quasi-criminal conduct not just in relation to offshore banking. Swiss court records reveal Baer hired Zurich-based private detectives Ryffel AG to follow the alleged whistleblower Rudolf Elmer while he took his daughters to primary school. The police apprehended one of the PIs in a car chase. The chase became a matter of public record in a Dec 2007 case in Switzerland – as did Baer’s attempts to bribe the suspected whistleblower into keeping quiet. See:

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Rudolf_Elmer_vs._Bank_Julius_Baer
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Clouds_on_the_Cayman_tax_heaven (Wikileaks story)

Baer claimed that:

“The posting of confidential bank records by anonymous sources significantly harms the privacy rights of all individuals.”

This is misrepresentation.

Baer likes to spin the documents as ‘bank records’ and never likes to talk about the dates concerned. The documents are nearly all Microsoft Word files setting up trust arrangements used as anonymizing shell structures. In its court filings, Baer claims to have been aware of the documents release since 2003 and the Swiss media had the documents in 2005. The only relevence these documents have now is that they expose the bank’s ultra-rich clients suspiciously funneling money through Cayman Islands trusts nearly a decade ago.

Wikileaks took a skeptical position on the documents until attacked by the bank. Baer, in attempting to shoot the messenger has only succeeded, spectacularly, in shooting itself.

Wikileaks awaits Baer’s apology.

Retrieved from “https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks_blasts_Cayman_Islands_bankCategories: Analyses | Grand Cayman | 2008 | 2008-02 | United States | Switzerland


Full correspondence between Wikileaks and Bank Julius Baer

From Wikileaks

Jump to: navigation, searchEDITORIAL
Tuesday February 19, 2008

The following documents form the full record of censorship demands from lawyers acting for the Swiss/Cayman Islands Bank Julius Baer and Wikileaks replies. The material is presented in reverse-chronological order.

After the final (top most) letter, a telephone call was made between between Wikileaks’ Californian pre-litigation attorney Julie Turner and BJB’s Evan Spiegel, which is detailed here:

Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks

and in today’s Wired magazine:

Lavely and Singer, BJB’s Hollywood lawyers, refused to reveal the name of their client or place their allegations in writing, other than to give a one paragraph reference to unspecified “copyright”, “trade secrets” and “tortuous conduct” claims (see the end of this file). L&S also refused to identify the documents they claimed were at issue.

Wikileaks takes its sources seriously. Wikileaks takes their efforts to get material out to the public very seriously. That means we are obligated not only to protect their identity, should they desire, but also to give full voice to the risks they have taken. This is our moral bedrock.

As the following correspondence demonstrates, BJB refused to put their allegations in writing as repeatedly requested. Consequently continued publication was a foregone conclusion.

Wikileaks received no further demands from BJB until the surprise ex-parte hearing.

Full correspondence over the demands follow:

----- Forwarded message from Wikileaks Legal <[email protected]> -----X-Original-To: [email protected]

Delivered-To: [email protected]

Privacy: yes

Privacy: yes

From: Wikileaks Legal <[email protected]>

To: Evan Spiegel <[email protected]>

Cc: Wikileaks Legal <[email protected]>,

        Wikileaks <[email protected]>, [email protected]

Subject: Re: Legal Notice & Demands

Privacy: yes

In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Privacy: yes

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:39:08 +0000 (GMT)

Dear Mr. Spiegal,

Your opinions are baseless and entirely rejected. Please confine

yourself to the facts in any future correspondence and keep your

tone civil.

Wikileaks is an international in scope. You have made vague references

to several different national jurisdictions, but extremely oddly,

refuse to name your client or any matter relevant to us, including

the names of any documents you object to. Under the circumstances

we feel you may not be acting in good faith.

Your odd refusal to provide even the most basic information makes

it appear that you are trying to set up some obscure provision in

DCMA law and have little interest in resolving what you claim to

be the issue at hand when given an opportunity to do so.

Infact you have provided us with no information for us to ascertain

that we have any involvement whatsoever with your concealed client.

As a organization for justice and the upholding of first amendment

rights we are somewhat of a cause celibre amongst lawyers and are

able to maintain a pool of high first rate councel to respond to

requests, each of which specializes in some juristiction or area of

law. Refusal to identify your client and the documents concerned

makes this assignment difficult.

Are you now claiming something in relation to the DCMA? In

California? Is this your primary claim? Please be clear.

Best wishes,

K. Kim.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:27:09PM +0000, Evan Spiegel wrote:

> Dear Wikileaks:

>

>.

 Your continued failure and refusal to provide designated DMCA agent

> contact information, despite request from counsel and our statement of

> location/jurisdiction, is now documented and will be included in our

> evidence exhibits in our complaint and application with the court for an

> injunction against wikileaks.

>

> As a result of your failure and continued refusal to comply with the

> requirements of the copyright act, you have thus waived the safe-harbor

> provisions therein and will be held liable for copyright infringement.

> You have no legal right to demand advance knowledge of the name of our

> client and the documents at issue -- that is the information that is to

> be and will be included in a DMCA notice and demand letter.  The

> copyright act DMCA requirements are quite clear.

>

> Your site promotes, encourages and facilitates the publication and

> distribution of stolen, illegally and/or tortiously obtained corporate

> records and private records of third-party consumers, including that of

> my client and its consumers.  In furtherance thereof, you hide your

> identity and refuse to provide legal contact information.  Accordingly,

> we have been instructed to proceed with an action against you in federal

> court in California.

>

> This is your final warning -- if you desire to resolve this matter

> without the necessity of litigation, your counsel may contact the

> undersigned within twenty-four hours.

>

> You act at your own peril.

>

> Govern yourselves accordingly.

>

> Nothing contained herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to

> constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of our client's rights or

> remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly

> reserved.

>

> Sincerely,

> Evan N. Spiegel

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> ----------------

> EVAN N. SPIEGEL, ESQ.

> LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

> ATTORNEYS AT LAW

> 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2400

> LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-2906

> TELEPHONE: (310) 556-3501

> FACSIMILE: (310) 556-3615

> www.LavelySinger.com

> E-MAIL: [email protected]

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> ----------------

> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO

> WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,

> CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW AND MAY NOT

> BE PUBLISHED OR DISSEMINATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  IF THE READER OF THIS

> MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT

> RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU

> ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR THE

> TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS COMMUNICATION

> IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN

> ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE LAW OFFICES OF LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL

> CORPORATION IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE (310-556-3501) OR E-MAIL (REPLY TO

> SENDER'S ADDRESS), AND THEN DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THIS COMMUNICATION AND

> ANY ATTACHED FILES.  THANK YOU.

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Wikileaks Legal [mailto:[email protected]]

> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:01 PM

> To: Evan Spiegel

> Cc: Wikileaks; [email protected]

> Subject: Re: Legal Notice & Demands

>

> Dear Mr Spiegel,

>

> Thank you for your part answer.

>

> We receive many notices from different jurisdictions. We ask that

> you as a matter of efficiency and politeness read carefully our

> responses. We asked that you provide a list of the documents concerned

> and the client or clients represented. We will then provide you

> with the legal contact details of the most appropriate counsel from

> our pool.

>

> Failure to provide the information requested in a timely manner may

> introduce additional delays and processing costs. Our counsel may

> claim these costs from your client should the matter proceed.

>

> I have asked one of our DCMA counsel to follow up on the DCMA

> the specific DMCA technicalities you mention which may have been

> introduced when we went from a single counsel to a pool.

>

> In the mean time, we note that your client(s) have and have always

> had an automatic public right of reply to any material made available

> through any Wikileaks website.

>

> Best wishes,

> K Lim.

>

> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:33:36PM +0000, Evan Spiegel wrote:

> >

> > Dear K Lim:

> > The jurisdictions at issue include California, the UK and Switzerland.

> > Legal proceedings will be commenced separately in each location should

> > the stolen documents at issue not be removed.  Please provide contact

> > information for your legal representatives in each of the three

> > locations in order that we may transmit formal legal demands and

> notices

> > with detailed information with regard to the claims and identifying

> the

> > documents at issue.  As you should be aware, under US federal

> copyright

> > law, it is your legal obligation to provide contact information for a

> > designated DMCA agent - this is our second request.

> > Sincerely,

> > Evan N. Spiegel

> >

> >

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > ----------------

> > EVAN N. SPIEGEL, ESQ.

> > LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

> > ATTORNEYS AT LAW

> > 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2400

> > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-2906

> > TELEPHONE: (310) 556-3501

> > FACSIMILE: (310) 556-3615

> > www.LavelySinger.com

> > E-MAIL: [email protected]

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > ----------------

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Wikileaks [mailto:[email protected]]

> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:57 PM

> > To: Evan Spiegel

> > Cc: [email protected]

> > Subject: Re: Legal Notice & Demands

> >

> > Dear Mr. Spiegel,

> >

> > Wikileaks is run over multiple national jurisdictions. So we can

> > assign your request to the appropriate group for processing, please

> > inform us which document(s) you are referring to, the name and

> > jurisdiction of your client and the jurisdiction under which L&S

> > is making legal claims or demands.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> > K Lim.

> >

> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:28:11PM +0000, Evan Spiegel wrote:

> > > Dear Sir or Madam:

> > >

> > > Please immediately send the undersigned your full contact details

> for

> > > transmission of legal notices with regard to content posted on

> > wikileaks

> > > that constitute violation of tradesecrets, conversion and stolen

> > > documents by former employee in violation of a written

> confidentiality

> > > agreement and copyright infringement, among other wrongful and

> > tortuous

> > > conduct.

> > >

> > > Thank you.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > > Evan N. Spiegel

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > > ----------------

> > > EVAN N. SPIEGEL, ESQ.

> > > LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

> > > ATTORNEYS AT LAW

> > > 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2400

> > > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-2906

> > > TELEPHONE: (310) 556-3501

> > > FACSIMILE: (310) 556-3615

> > > www.LavelySinger.com

> > > E-MAIL: [email protected]

> > >

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > > ----------------

> > > THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR

> ENTITY

> > TO

> > > WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS

> PRIVILEGED,

> > > CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW AND MAY

> > NOT

> > > BE PUBLISHED OR DISSEMINATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  IF THE READER OF

> > THIS

> > > MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT

> > > RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,

> YOU

> > > ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR

> THE

> > > TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS

> COMMUNICATION

> > > IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN

> > > ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE LAW OFFICES OF LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL

> > > CORPORATION IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE (310-556-3501) OR E-MAIL (REPLY

> > TO

> > > SENDER'S ADDRESS), AND THEN DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THIS COMMUNICATION

> > AND

> > > ANY ATTACHED FILES.  THANK YOU.

> > >

----- End forwarded message -----

Retrieved from “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Full_correspondence_between_Wikileaks_and_Bank_Julius_BaerCategories: Analyses | United States | 2008 | 2008-02 | Bank Julius Baer


Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks

From Wikileaks

Jump to: navigation, searchJULIAN ASSANGE and DANIEL SCHMITT
Wednesday January 23, 2008

The largest Swiss bank specializing in hiding the assets of the ultra-rich, Bank Julius Baer, says it will file federal US proceedings against the transparency group Wikileaks by Friday.

Over the last two weeks, Wikileaks has released several hundred documents from a Swiss banking whistleblower purportedly showing offshore tax evasion and money laundering by extremely wealthy and in some cases, politically sensitive, clients from the US, Europe, China and Peru.

Part of the data was leaked to US and German tax authorities in 2005 and the Wall Street Journal ran an article on the act of leaking but not those mentioned in the material. The detail and specific allegations have previously been unavailable to the public.

The bank concerned, Julius Baer (BJB), which specializes in asset hiding, has briefed Hollywood media lawyers Lavely and Singer, who like to describe themselves as “all-around bad cop for stars from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger to Jim Carrey and Celine Dion.”.

Strangely, Lavely and Singer have refused to put in writing either the name of their client or name of the documents concerned.

However in a telephone call yesterday between Wikileaks’ Californian counsel Julie Turner [editor: Julie Turner was Wikileaks pre-litigation lawyer for this matter. Don’t send her material for Wikileaks in general] and Lavely and Singer’s Evan Spiegel, L&S admitted their client was BJB and claimed that the whistleblower concerned was the former deputy director of the Cayman Islands office, Rudolf Elmer.

Mr. Elmer, who has since returned to Zurich, took a December 2007 anti-stalking case against BJB in an attempt to prevent BJB’s private detectives following him. L&S claims that it has its own proceedings against the whistleblower scheduled for hearing this month. L&S made several other allegations against Mr. Elmer to Wikileaks’ counsel, however L&S have not put these in writing.

The Swiss daily, Weltwoche, in its 2005 article, “The Leak in Paradise”, confirmed the veracity of several of the files with two BJB Cayman Islands office employees.

Although Wikileaks can not say that the files are identical to those seen by the Swiss paper, in light of BJB’s threatened legal attack on Wikileaks over documents that:

..constitute violation of trade secrets, conversion and stolen documents by former employee in violation of a written confidentiality agreement and copyright infringement, among other wrongful and tortuous conduct.

Wikileaks asks that the documents and BJB’s practices of asset hiding be inspected and reminds BJB that its failure to openly respond to the allegations against it continues to draw scrutiny of the public and regulators (to whom the material has been forwarded) alike.

See

See also

Retrieved from “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._WikileaksCategories: Analyses | Switzerland | 2008 | 2008-01 | United States | Grand Cayman | Peru | Germany | Spain | China


Rudolf Elmer vs. Bank Julius Baer

From Wikileaks

Jump to: navigation, search Unless otherwise specified the document described here:

  • Was first publicly revealed by Wikileaks
  • At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.
  • Is of substantial political, diplomatic or ethical significance.
  • Has been verified if the analysis, summary or note fields indicate, otherwise has not (yet) been verified. Most documents come in from journalists. Frauds are extremely rare, but possible.

File
julius-baer-stalking.zip (click to view full file)Summary
The zip file consists of two documents.

The first document, dated 2006-01-22, is a letter from a former employee to Johannes de Gier, the CEO of swiss private Bank Julius Baer of Zurich. It addresses certain issues the employee has with the bank, including money for medial surgery owed to the employee by the bank as well as certain allegations on being stalked by bank engaged private investigators.

The second document, dated 2007-12-11, constitutes the judicial denial notice for the lawsuit filed by Rudolf Elmer against the swiss private bank Julius Baer of Zurich. Elmer, the former JB employee, had made claims against Julius Baer for stalking, corruption and coercion and is in parallel also involved in a lawsuit filed by JB against him. More detailed information on Elmer’s claims can be found in the preceeding paper.

According to Elmer he and his family are subject to observation by private investigators working for Julius Baer, to an extent that his 6 year old daughter needs psychological treatment and his life is overall suffering from it. Various examples for the scare tactics employed by the PIs are given, and even though these activities could be proven and are accepted as fact by the prosecution, it is being ruled against Elmer. Following people in public spaces for instance does not represent an illegal activity in Switzerland.

Context
Switzerland
Judiciary
Prosecutor’s Office Zurich – Sihl

Primary language
DeutschContents

  • leak:julius-baer-stalking/JB_Wishleblowiner_Stalking_Schweiz.pdf
  • leak:julius-baer-stalking/JB_Stalking_Ruling.pdf

File size in bytes
1246021File type information
Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extractCryptographic identity
SHA256 3e1df7d9bc3382eacad76c544e9aa7c1ba5bf6c5c91a3790130cce4962bd47b7Description (as provided by the original submitter)
Stalking in Switzerland is not a crime and therefore Swiss authorities will not punish a stalker even though the Stalker creates psychological torture on a six year old child and his family. This is the case where the stalker is Julius Baer and its Management. In addition Julius Baer offers money CHF 500’000 in order to solve the problem and to silence a Swiss Banker. Verification can be easily done by calling Raymond Baer and he will provide you further information. If not please discuss this matter on this page and further documentration/information will be provided.

The family is still threatened and actions are taken against this family by Julius Baer in order to silence them it appears.

Know something about this material? Tell the world.
(see other comments first)

Retrieved from “https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Rudolf_Elmer_vs._Bank_Julius_BaerCategories: Leaked files | Analysis requested | Switzerland | Judiciary | Prosecutor’s Office Zurich – Sihl | Deutsch | English


Clouds on the Cayman tax heaven

From Wikileaks

Jump to: navigation, searchIs David helvetic and Goliath a bear?

DANIEL SCHMITT
Friday February 15, 2008

This is the story of Rudolf Elmer of Switzerland, former Chief Operating Officer of Bank Julius Baer on the Cayman Islands. The story of a man suspected of leaking to the press information about the activities of a Swiss bank specialized in hiding and laundering the money of the ultra rich through anonymizing offshore trust structures. It also is the story of a man and his family living with the consequences of being suspected of fouling the nest of a traditional Swiss bank engaging in dubious activities. This story might differ from previous one’s related to this issue, mainly because while researching the story, Rudolf Elmer has also been asked for his account of things.

Over the last few months Wikileaks has obtained and published various documents related to allegedly illegal activities in the Cayman Islands performed by Bank Julius Baer and started initial research into these. Regarding the same bank Wikileaks had obtained legal documentation on the case of a Rudolf Elmer, former debuty head of BJB cayman, in a Dec 2007 Zurich court case against Bank Julius Baer. The law suit relates to various irregularities of health-care/social-security payments by the bank, as well as the matter of stalking (including at least one acknowledged car chase) Elmer and his family by BJB-hired Private Investigators Zurich-based Ryffel AG,

Initial research easily turned up that 2002/2003 some sensitive documents had slipped out of the Swiss banks office in the Cayman Islands, apparently reaching US tax investigation units and eventually sent to the Swiss financial magazine CASH, which reported on the disclosure, but possibly due to an injunction or Swiss banking law, not the details. This event also triggered an article in the Wall Street Journal an article in Swiss Weltwoche, titled “The leak in paradise”, giving background information on what happened back in 2003 on the Caymans.

When the leak of trust structures was discovered in 2003, Bank Julius Baer initiated legal investigations on the Caymans, involving the search of the home of each employee and when not gaining any insights from that, undertaking a polygraph test on the employees. It still remained unclear where the data went.

The group of people having legitimate access to these documents was small, Rudolf Elmer, who was BJB Caymans deputy head and Chief Operating Officer at that point in time also fulfilled the position of Hurricane Officer, whos duties included keeping backups. Elmer, facing a spinal surgery coming up in a few days time, was on sick leave and had some trouble scheduling the test. He thus became a suspect.

The Polygraph Test

The transcript of the polygraph test conducted by a Lou Criscella and passed on to Wikileaks is very abstract to read with names of clients being substituted with single letters. While not all the context thus is properly understandable, the transcript does not show any wrongdoing.

Reading the transcript one gets the impression that data has slipped out of the Cayman Islands as early as 1997, and timelining the transcript with a couple of later documents will also reveal that Elmer is accused of having leaked data that was produced after the date that he left from the Caymans.

Elmer complained to the American Polygraph Association, the institution his interrogator works for, the Cayman Prime Minister and other entities about the conduct of the test.

Normally sick people would not be interviewed, but the APA’s Ethics Commission, stated in a letter that the ethical rules for polygraphing do not apply to the Cayman Islands, and as the test had not been fully carried out, most of the APA rules would not apply anyway. He was informed there are no regulations on the Caymans for polygraph tests as in the United States.

Leaving home, returning to Switzerland

This is about when things started to get different for Rudolf Elmer.

It became essentially clear that he was a prime suspect and Bank Julius Baer wanted to get rid of him. Personal suggestions by his manager to go out diving, possibly as deep as possible, as well as anonymous phone calls to his family suggesting they should leave the country for their own good, did not make the whole situation much easier for the Elmers. As can be derived from the transcript and personal communication with him, Rudolf Elmer felt very much like being home on the Caymans, much in contrast to Switzerland, and the same can be said for his family.

After the test Bank Julius Baer laid off him as an employee and the family decided to move back to Switzerland. Bank Julius Baer, not being able to substantially prove anything, but still investigating into him, had hired a bunch of different Private Investigators like the Zurich-based Ryffel AG, to track him. According to Elmer’s assertions, he was threatened not to go to the police verbally by officials of the bank, most of them composing the boards of directors and similar entities within the various distributed BJB companies, holdings, limiteds etc.

According to Elmer (most of the allegations appear in his Dec 2007 court documents), he was subject to more or less permanent observation, as was his family. His then 6-year old daughter got followed on her way to school/kindergarden, his wife and daughter were even engaged in a chase on a Swiss autobahn by the Ryffel AG, which had to be intercepted by the Police (police confirmed). Cars driving in the dead-end street he lived in at night, annoying his neighbours and putting further pressure on him. The phone calls, that started in the Caymans followed to Switzerland. The situation again became very uncomfortable, with Elmer’s 8-year old daughter suffering trauma from the bizarre lifestyle her family was forced into. Elmer also was offered CHF 500,000 by the bank, according to his statement in an effort to buy his silence; he turned down the offer and asked the bank to be charged with bribery, but the police found no law against bribing private persons.

Bank Julius Baer also started claims against Rudolf Elmer in Switzerland. These could not be followed by prosecution as BJB refused to give out information on its activity on the Cayman Islands that would provide a basis for investigation and Elmer’s defense. On that basis no prosecution in Switzerland could be initiated. As BJB still had the PIs in the field at that point in time, putting Elmer under pressure, maybe the tradeoff between releasing the material to the prosecutor and facing eventual consequences, and silencing the suspected root of all the trouble did not appear good enough at that point in time.

Elmer wrote a a letter to the newly appointed CEO of Bank Julius Baer in Switzerland, Johannes de Gier, where he explained his position, trying to set some facts straight. This document is the only document this author is aware of linking Elmer to being (one of) the whisteblower(s), and it holds more information on his actual responsibilities and awareness of activities on the Caymans. While it has an uncompromising tone, it also sounds like a man talking about his strong defenses in order to put an end to the harassment he is under. Rudolf Elmer says this is about the time when he started to arrange protection for himself and his family with what he knew. He sent a few hints out that indicated he was in possession, lawfully, of this information, to make sure nothing would happen to him or his family. The document was submitted to Wikileaks in a bundle with the legal denial notice issued by the prosecutor in Zurich.

The legal applications filed with the prosecutor in Zurich-Sihl, Switzerland against Bank Julius Baer partly seem to be based on the letter sent to Johannes de Gier to describe Elmer’s situation. The denial notice from the prosecutor’s office indicate that Elmer also not been successful here. The prosecutor’s office of Zurich-Sihl ruled that stalking can not be substance of a criminal prosecution in Switzerland, a land where no free person is restricted to move the same way as another in public space. Acknowledging the car pursuit, the prosecutor only mentions they were able to verify that a PI agency had been engaged, but does not comment any further on this incident at all. The prosecutor’s office states that while there could be moral claims towards someone ordering such an observation, the actions did not break criminal law. Regarding the bribery claims that Elmer had made towards the bank, the Prosecutor further ruled that bribery is not applicable to a private person but only to a state entity, and stated non-understanding Elmer’s motivation for this claim, stating the whistleblower should be happy about the money and the bank dropping its complaint.

Again, various other entities have been contacted by Rudolf Elmer, in his desperate and continuous search for help, with no real success. He contacted the Swiss Foundation of the International Social Service in respect to their Rights for Children program, to find help for his daughters protection of the harassment, yet no success. He was told these were if at all legal matters, and as he already found out, there is no legal basis or protection against stalking or observation by a private entity engaged by a private corporation. Not for children or anyone at all in the free country of Switzerland.

Rarely does it get as clear as at this point: not only are financial institutions in Switzerland very eager to avoid any attention by anyone, but also are those banks being protected by certain legal institutions. As one of the side effects of this story, the Swiss federal tax entity was very interested in having access to what was obtained by the Zurich Prosecutor’s Office in relation to this case, yet have they also been denied access to those files. So leaving the premises of Bank Julius Baer for a short moment one could wonder if even after Jean Ziegler stood up as a hero and was actually able to change parts of the Swiss banking system to something morally and judicially more sound, the Swiss banking world is still as tightly knotted with parts of the legal system as much that it appears bizarre to anyone of non-helvetic origin. This also poses the important question in how much Switzerland with this attitude will ever be able to harmonize with the EU on the issue of banking transparency in order to stop illegal money flows.

While a lot of the extensive information and documentation is very hard to interpret, if at all, this was the rough story of a Rudolf Elmer, fighting like David against the bear Goliath. And this is also the story of one of the biggest banks involved into offshoring business on the Caymans, dealing with an issue related to the privacy of their businesses. A story of a bank that by its actions right from the beginning to all action taken today, shows it has a lot to hide from all parties eventually involved. A story of a bank that rather uses scare tactics than talk about its business in a proper lawsuit. A story of a bank that seems about willing to do anything to silence what Rudolf Elmer has to say.

Documents related to this story can be found at:

Rudolf Elmer to this day claims he has not leaked any documentation related to Bank Julius Baer in order to harm anyone, only setup an insurance for his and his family’s personal safety. Whether this assertion is true, technically true, or untrue, or whether Mr. Elmer has been driven a bit batty by the pressure should not distract us from the actions of Bank Julius Baer in its attempts to silence its former high-level employee or the role it plays in supporting ultra-rich’s offshore tax avoidance, tax evasion, asset hiding and money laundering..
Wikileaks would like to encourage everyone out there to have a look at the information. We encourage anyone dealing with tax fraud and evasion and offshore/Swiss banking to review the material posted with us. This will make sure we can verify the relevance and validity of the material presented. Bank Julius Baer has decided to go for the next round in trying to silence Wikileaks. This will not happen and only proves that at least parts of the material hold valid information.

Retrieved from “https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Clouds_on_the_Cayman_tax_heavenCategories: Analyses | Switzerland | 2008 | 2008-02


Clouds on the Cayman tax heaven

From Wikileaks

Jump to: navigation, search

Is David helvetic and Goliath a bear?

DANIEL SCHMITT
Friday February 15, 2008

This is the story of Rudolf Elmer of Switzerland, former Chief Operating Officer of Bank Julius Baer on the Cayman Islands. The story of a man suspected of leaking to the press information about the activities of a Swiss bank specialized in hiding and laundering the money of the ultra rich through anonymizing offshore trust structures. It also is the story of a man and his family living with the consequences of being suspected of fouling the nest of a traditional Swiss bank engaging in dubious activities. This story might differ from previous one’s related to this issue, mainly because while researching the story, Rudolf Elmer has also been asked for his account of things.

Over the last few months Wikileaks has obtained and published various documents related to allegedly illegal activities in the Cayman Islands performed by Bank Julius Baer and started initial research into these. Regarding the same bank Wikileaks had obtained legal documentation on the case of a Rudolf Elmer, former debuty head of BJB cayman, in a Dec 2007 Zurich court case against Bank Julius Baer. The law suit relates to various irregularities of health-care/social-security payments by the bank, as well as the matter of stalking (including at least one acknowledged car chase) Elmer and his family by BJB-hired Private Investigators Zurich-based Ryffel AG,

Initial research easily turned up that 2002/2003 some sensitive documents had slipped out of the Swiss banks office in the Cayman Islands, apparently reaching US tax investigation units and eventually sent to the Swiss financial magazine CASH, which reported on the disclosure, but possibly due to an injunction or Swiss banking law, not the details. This event also triggered an article in the Wall Street Journal an article in Swiss Weltwoche, titled “The leak in paradise”, giving background information on what happened back in 2003 on the Caymans.

When the leak of trust structures was discovered in 2003, Bank Julius Baer initiated legal investigations on the Caymans, involving the search of the home of each employee and when not gaining any insights from that, undertaking a polygraph test on the employees. It still remained unclear where the data went.

The group of people having legitimate access to these documents was small, Rudolf Elmer, who was BJB Caymans deputy head and Chief Operating Officer at that point in time also fulfilled the position of Hurricane Officer, whos duties included keeping backups. Elmer, facing a spinal surgery coming up in a few days time, was on sick leave and had some trouble scheduling the test. He thus became a suspect.

The Polygraph Test

The transcript of the polygraph test conducted by a Lou Criscella and passed on to Wikileaks is very abstract to read with names of clients being substituted with single letters. While not all the context thus is properly understandable, the transcript does not show any wrongdoing.

Reading the transcript one gets the impression that data has slipped out of the Cayman Islands as early as 1997, and timelining the transcript with a couple of later documents will also reveal that Elmer is accused of having leaked data that was produced after the date that he left from the Caymans.

Elmer complained to the American Polygraph Association, the institution his interrogator works for, the Cayman Prime Minister and other entities about the conduct of the test.

Normally sick people would not be interviewed, but the APA’s Ethics Commission, stated in a letter that the ethical rules for polygraphing do not apply to the Cayman Islands, and as the test had not been fully carried out, most of the APA rules would not apply anyway. He was informed there are no regulations on the Caymans for polygraph tests as in the United States.

Leaving home, returning to Switzerland

This is about when things started to get different for Rudolf Elmer.

It became essentially clear that he was a prime suspect and Bank Julius Baer wanted to get rid of him. Personal suggestions by his manager to go out diving, possibly as deep as possible, as well as anonymous phone calls to his family suggesting they should leave the country for their own good, did not make the whole situation much easier for the Elmers. As can be derived from the transcript and personal communication with him, Rudolf Elmer felt very much like being home on the Caymans, much in contrast to Switzerland, and the same can be said for his family.

After the test Bank Julius Baer laid off him as an employee and the family decided to move back to Switzerland. Bank Julius Baer, not being able to substantially prove anything, but still investigating into him, had hired a bunch of different Private Investigators like the Zurich-based Ryffel AG, to track him. According to Elmer’s assertions, he was threatened not to go to the police verbally by officials of the bank, most of them composing the boards of directors and similar entities within the various distributed BJB companies, holdings, limiteds etc.

According to Elmer (most of the allegations appear in his Dec 2007 court documents), he was subject to more or less permanent observation, as was his family. His then 6-year old daughter got followed on her way to school/kindergarden, his wife and daughter were even engaged in a chase on a Swiss autobahn by the Ryffel AG, which had to be intercepted by the Police (police confirmed). Cars driving in the dead-end street he lived in at night, annoying his neighbours and putting further pressure on him. The phone calls, that started in the Caymans followed to Switzerland. The situation again became very uncomfortable, with Elmer’s 8-year old daughter suffering trauma from the bizarre lifestyle her family was forced into. Elmer also was offered CHF 500,000 by the bank, according to his statement in an effort to buy his silence; he turned down the offer and asked the bank to be charged with bribery, but the police found no law against bribing private persons.

Bank Julius Baer also started claims against Rudolf Elmer in Switzerland. These could not be followed by prosecution as BJB refused to give out information on its activity on the Cayman Islands that would provide a basis for investigation and Elmer’s defense. On that basis no prosecution in Switzerland could be initiated. As BJB still had the PIs in the field at that point in time, putting Elmer under pressure, maybe the tradeoff between releasing the material to the prosecutor and facing eventual consequences, and silencing the suspected root of all the trouble did not appear good enough at that point in time.

Elmer wrote a a letter to the newly appointed CEO of Bank Julius Baer in Switzerland, Johannes de Gier, where he explained his position, trying to set some facts straight. This document is the only document this author is aware of linking Elmer to being (one of) the whisteblower(s), and it holds more information on his actual responsibilities and awareness of activities on the Caymans. While it has an uncompromising tone, it also sounds like a man talking about his strong defenses in order to put an end to the harassment he is under. Rudolf Elmer says this is about the time when he started to arrange protection for himself and his family with what he knew. He sent a few hints out that indicated he was in possession, lawfully, of this information, to make sure nothing would happen to him or his family. The document was submitted to Wikileaks in a bundle with the legal denial notice issued by the prosecutor in Zurich.

The legal applications filed with the prosecutor in Zurich-Sihl, Switzerland against Bank Julius Baer partly seem to be based on the letter sent to Johannes de Gier to describe Elmer’s situation. The denial notice from the prosecutor’s office indicate that Elmer also not been successful here. The prosecutor’s office of Zurich-Sihl ruled that stalking can not be substance of a criminal prosecution in Switzerland, a land where no free person is restricted to move the same way as another in public space. Acknowledging the car pursuit, the prosecutor only mentions they were able to verify that a PI agency had been engaged, but does not comment any further on this incident at all. The prosecutor’s office states that while there could be moral claims towards someone ordering such an observation, the actions did not break criminal law. Regarding the bribery claims that Elmer had made towards the bank, the Prosecutor further ruled that bribery is not applicable to a private person but only to a state entity, and stated non-understanding Elmer’s motivation for this claim, stating the whistleblower should be happy about the money and the bank dropping its complaint.

Again, various other entities have been contacted by Rudolf Elmer, in his desperate and continuous search for help, with no real success. He contacted the Swiss Foundation of the International Social Service in respect to their Rights for Children program, to find help for his daughters protection of the harassment, yet no success. He was told these were if at all legal matters, and as he already found out, there is no legal basis or protection against stalking or observation by a private entity engaged by a private corporation. Not for children or anyone at all in the free country of Switzerland.

Rarely does it get as clear as at this point: not only are financial institutions in Switzerland very eager to avoid any attention by anyone, but also are those banks being protected by certain legal institutions. As one of the side effects of this story, the Swiss federal tax entity was very interested in having access to what was obtained by the Zurich Prosecutor’s Office in relation to this case, yet have they also been denied access to those files. So leaving the premises of Bank Julius Baer for a short moment one could wonder if even after Jean Ziegler stood up as a hero and was actually able to change parts of the Swiss banking system to something morally and judicially more sound, the Swiss banking world is still as tightly knotted with parts of the legal system as much that it appears bizarre to anyone of non-helvetic origin. This also poses the important question in how much Switzerland with this attitude will ever be able to harmonize with the EU on the issue of banking transparency in order to stop illegal money flows.

While a lot of the extensive information and documentation is very hard to interpret, if at all, this was the rough story of a Rudolf Elmer, fighting like David against the bear Goliath. And this is also the story of one of the biggest banks involved into offshoring business on the Caymans, dealing with an issue related to the privacy of their businesses. A story of a bank that by its actions right from the beginning to all action taken today, shows it has a lot to hide from all parties eventually involved. A story of a bank that rather uses scare tactics than talk about its business in a proper lawsuit. A story of a bank that seems about willing to do anything to silence what Rudolf Elmer has to say.

Documents related to this story can be found at:

Rudolf Elmer to this day claims he has not leaked any documentation related to Bank Julius Baer in order to harm anyone, only setup an insurance for his and his family’s personal safety. Whether this assertion is true, technically true, or untrue, or whether Mr. Elmer has been driven a bit batty by the pressure should not distract us from the actions of Bank Julius Baer in its attempts to silence its former high-level employee or the role it plays in supporting ultra-rich’s offshore tax avoidance, tax evasion, asset hiding and money laundering..
Wikileaks would like to encourage everyone out there to have a look at the information. We encourage anyone dealing with tax fraud and evasion and offshore/Swiss banking to review the material posted with us. This will make sure we can verify the relevance and validity of the material presented. Bank Julius Baer has decided to go for the next round in trying to silence Wikileaks. This will not happen and only proves that at least parts of the material hold valid information.

Retrieved from “https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Clouds_on_the_Cayman_tax_heaven

Related Posts:

2 responses .

  1. Jack loach says:

    Update .Dec . 17 th. 2010.

    Nov.23 – – -Nov.26 th. 2010.

    The following sent to – – – – 312- – Lords – – – – – – House of Lords.

    The following sent to – – – – 649 – – M.P.'s – – – – – House of Commons.

    BANKS -PARTNERS IN CRIMES.

    Pictet & Cie Bank.

    Ivan Pictet.

    Charles Pictet.

    Nicolas Pictet.

    Jacques de Saussure.

    Jean – Francois Demole.

    Renaud de Planta.

    Philippe Bertherat..

    Pictet & Cie.- claim they are the “Rolls Royce”of swiss banks.

    Swiss Banks or more correctly Swizz banks.

    Swizz. —- “ a great disappointment.” or a “ fraud.”

    Fraud. —“ an intentional deception or dishonesty.”— “a crime.”

    Crime. —“ an act committed or omitted in violation of a law.”

    Serious Crimes .

    Conspiring to pervert the Course of Justice.

    Perverting the Course of Justice.

    Contempt of Court.

    Pictet & Cie Bank –Partners –(1996—2010)-liable.

    Peters &Peters – Partners.—(1999—-2010)-liable.

    The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld crucial documents requested under a High Court order. The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld evidence from the Police, and one of it’s account managers Susan Broadhead gave a false witness statement to the Police.

    Another one of it’s managers Nicholas Campiche ( Now Head of Pictet – Alternative Investments.) concocted a letter pretending to be a client and closed his account. The senior partner (Ivan Pictet.) sought to have numerous documents destroyed,along with those copies held in their London office’s of Pictet Asset Management. Initially stating that they were forgeries then their lawyers Peters & Peters – Monty Raphael –and the barrister Charles Flint.Q.C. later had to admit in Court that the documents were genuine.

    British Parliament. Hansard .29th March 2007.

    Barry Sheerman .M.P.—quote.

    ———“ Constituents of mine have lost £2 million through fraud. The fraudster used Pictet & Cie – – a French Bank – – and Pictet Asset Management to back the fraud being perpetrated.””

    (1) It is a criminal offence for a bank to knowingly act for an undischarged criminal bankrupt in so far as it seeks to assist that criminal bankrupt in the fraudulent movement of monies. ( Money Laundering.)

    (2) It is a criminal offence for a bank to lie to the police and the bankrupts trustee in bankruptcy in so far as any knowledge of, or dealings with the bank was refuted .

    (3) A bank can be guilty of Contempt of Court if it fails to comply fully with the Courts order for discovery .

    (4) The banks contempt is further compounded if it fails to address its error after it is specifically drawn to the to its solicitors attention. ( Monty Raphael).

    (5) It is a criminal offence under the Financial Services Act to seek to destroy evidence that might be relevant to an investigation .

    (6) It is a criminal offence not to relinquish control of funds to the Trustee immediately the fact of the bankruptcy is drawn to the banks attention.

    (7) It is a criminal offence to lie or otherwise obfuscate the lawful and proper enquiries of the F.S.A.

    In the F.S.A. cover up , they concluded that there had been “ Rogue” elements in Pictet & Cie’s , London operations . They had been moved from their London Office so who was there left to prosecute. “ Unbelievable.”

    On Dec 9th,2008. the complaint was sent to 150 Members of the House Of Lords and 230 Members of Parliament.

    *** We thank –David Cameron. M.P. ( Canary Wharf Speech.) Dec. 15th. 2008.

    Now— PRIME MINISTER.

    (1) Bankers who behave irresponsibly should face professional consequences.

    (2) If anyone is found to have behaved criminally they must be prosecuted.

    (3) The F.S.A and the Serious Fraud Office should be following up every lead,

    investigating every suspect transaction .

    (4) We need to make it 100% clear –those who break the law should face

    prosecution.

    (5) That we make sure we root out any wrongdoing that may have happened, whoever

    is involved, however high or well connected they may be.

    Ivan Pictet.

    Managing partner in Pictet & Cie Bank . — retiring -?. 2010.

    President of the Geneva Financial Centre. —stepping down -2010. ?

    World Bank.committee member.—- ?

    United Nations. Investment Committee member,

    Vice President – Global Humanitarian Forum. — redundant.2010.?

    Member of the Henokiens.

    Blackstone Group — Board Member.

    Past- President – Geneva Private Bankers association.

    Past –President – Geneva Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

    Monty Raphael. ( Peters & Peters.)

    Quote.” —- Doyen of U.K. Fraud lawyers.

    Head of Fraud and Regulatory Dept. —- stepping down, –2009.? Director of the Fraud Advisory panel.

    Member of the Law Society of England & Wales.

    International Bar Association Member.

    Written Parliamentary Questions received by the table office ..

    (1) To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to ensure that Swiss Banks such as Pictet & Cie do not evade criminal prosecution under EU law even when the illegal act is committed by a London based subsidiary.

    (2)To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to protect the rights of UK citizens who seek redress following criminal activities by Swiss banks with subsidiary offices located in London.

    On Dec 9th,2008. the complaint was sent to 150 Members of the House Of Lords and 230 Members of Parliament.

    On Aug 19th.2009.another complainants file regarding the “cover up” was forwarded to the same 380 members.

    We started our campaign in June 2008 — via the “net” to highlight our fight to get “justice”. In our second year campaign we hoped to reveal further damning evidence . Due to there being an on going Police investigation into our complaint we are at this moment unable to place dozens of documents on to the “net”. Again we thank other “ E- Mailers” for their information in relation to our campaign.

    Quote. ( America’s Top Lawyer .)

    You can be the richest man in the world with the best lawyers that money can buy but you cannot win against a man who has got nothing left to lose and is telling the truth.

    Truth Hurts.

    Ivan Pictet. Announces stepping down from Pictet & Cie. 5th Feb 2010.

    Stepping Down—President of Geneva Financial centre.—2010.

    Monty Raphael. Steps down as head . May. 2009.

    *** We note that there has been a sharp increase in Peters & Peters partners leaving to go to other practices. Moving does not alleviate them of any responsibility from any illegalities that may have occurred at Peters & Peters during their partnership tenure. From 1999 onwards.

    *** Were currently waiting to see if the Police and other Law Enforcement Bodies attempt to cover this case up like their F.S.A. counterparts. If they do –“ then watch this space.”

    We were informed that due to pressure from our M.P. that the Ministry of Justice have asked Lord Myners to investigate our claims that the F.S.A. covered up the illegal activities of Pictet Asset Management. London.

    The consensus of opinion is the Pictet & Cie should be prosecuted , and that their U.K. banking licence should be taken away.

    Their solicitors at Peters & Peters .London — prosecuted and” struck off”..

    *** Started campaign — June 6th.2008.

    2 years —- approx 2million e-mails – – – but still no writs, injunctions or threats of litigation – – – WHY – – – because it is all true.

    *** . The bigger they are — the harder they fall.!!!

    In America —- they would have all been in prison for the last seven years.

    Nov.23rd –Nov.26th. 2010 .

    The above sent to —— 312 – – Lords – – – House of Lords.

    The above sent to — –649 – – M.P.'s – – – House of Commons._

    Full Story.

    Go to search box on “Google” and insert ( Ivan Pictet / Monty Raphael) or

    insert ( Pictet & Cie / Monty Raphael ) – – then try it on “Google”.

    Or try on Yahoo. – – – ( Charles Flint Q.C.) .

    Or try on Yahoo – – – ( Nicholas Campiche.)

  2. jack loach says:

    *** Were currently waiting to see if the West Yorkshire Police :-

    (1) Chief Constable. — Sir Norman Bettison.

    (2) Forces Solicitor . — Mike Percival .

    (3) Head Of Economic Crime Unit. — Det . Chief Inspector Steven Taylor.

    continue to attempt to cover this case up like their F.S.A. counterparts. If they do –“ then watch this space.”

    We were informed that due to pressure from our M.P. that the Ministry of Justice have asked Lord Myners to investigate our claims that the F.S.A. covered up the illegal activities of Pictet Asset Management. London.

    It has been noted that the book launch for PICTET was held at Lord Myners Belgravia home.We might as well have asked Ivan Pictet to investigate our complaint.-or someone from FRIENDS RE-UNITED.

    Lady Myners on Prix PICTET advisory board.

    The consensus of opinion is the Pictet & Cie should be prosecuted , and that their U.K. banking licence should be taken away.

    Their Solicitors at Peters & Peters .London “ struck off and prosecuted..”

    In America —- they would have all been in prison for the last seven years.

© 2007-2017 Strangely Perfect All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by me