Deutsche Bank insiders now found guilty in Chicago crimes they denied in the UK court

Mark Anthony Taylor to :

Jeremy Lefroy MP

Judge McKenna, Designated Judge of Birmingham Mercantile Court

Copies To:    JACO    Judiciary
Re: B40BM021
Dear Sirs,
    As ZeroHedge reports today, Deutsche Bank trader David Liew pleaded guilty to conspiring to rig precious metal prices. The techniques involve spoof trades which trigger price changes on the target exchange. The trades are then cancelled before they can be matched to counterparties, i.e classic HFT abuse. This is the technique alleged by many in metals industry, as precious metal prices frequently collapse vertically at odd hours on no trading volume.So allegations have become assertions of truths established in a court of law.  Full article here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-02/deutsche-bank-admits-guilt-fraud-conspiracy-rig-precious-metals-markets

Deutsche Bank has now settled allegations, incriminated Scotiabank, HSBC and UBS, and now its traders plead guilty.

As you know, I alleged corruption in the UK judiciary, including JACO, and the office of the Attorney General, the SFO and the FCA – to the effect of covering up the banking cartel’s frauds, money laundering and perjury. Let us tie this in to subsequent events…
Recently the European defendants in my lawsuit, HSBC, UBS,RBS, Barclays & Deutsche Bank were all incriminated for laundering money from Russia to London, estimated to be of the order of £65 billion. Deutsche Bank’s share in that trade is $10 billion and the FCA could not identify a single recipient of that share. We can surmise that since all these banks were colluding to rig Libor and FX rates, as a cartel, then we can assume that the money laundering is itself a cartel activity. The same players in the same criminal market committing the same crimes with a recidivist history of cartel activity. A ‘no-brainer’ as they say.. The tax loss totals to over £15 billion from the Treasury, assuming a 25% liability. If the cartel wanted to move £65 billion without massive liabilities it can be done though a company that pays minimal tax. The fact it had to be laundered suggests it is the proceeds of criminal activity or to finance criminal activity. The scale of the fraud suggests either a number of oligarchs shifting all capital into London, or a political/national entity doing the same.
Now, following the inferences of the FCA and BaFin themselves, who said that such money laundering could fund terrorism,  I suggested Deutsche Bank may have been supplying bullion to ISIS via its Turkish Sunni Islam population in Germany. I asked the SFO to cross-reference the names of people on its terrorist watch list to the names of bullion traders known to Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank permits direct OTC bullion trade to its account holders and the transactions recorded in banking records as EDLMETAL..So it would be trivial for the security services to establish which Turks in Germany, on the terrorist-watch-list, were heavily trading in bullion. I had suggested to the SFO that Deutsche Bank may have destroyed its receipts for such trade to hide the degree of its liabilities in the trade it had been rigging.
So you can see, that when the investigations is blocked in high office…
…that the Attorney General not only covers up money laundering violations (destroying receipts), gold rigging and perjury – he covers up the function of Deutsche Bank in the funding of ISIS. Now we see the effect of that in Manchester and why the Prime Minister Theresa May was angry that the FBI/CIA released its intel on the bomber. May would only refer to him as an ‘extremist’.
Now, as I said, all the European defendants in my lawsuit are recently incriminated for this activity, not just Deutsche Bank, and they appear to have acted as a money-laundering-cartel. So that when I challenged Deutsche Bank for having apparently destroyed its receipts, for refusing to admit or deny having copies, and when I invite other defendants to survey them for themselves – and I am stonewalled, we are now in a position to deduce that not only were the defendants covering up Deutsche Bank’s money laundering violations, they were covering up their own money laundering, as members of the cartel. They were covering up perhaps £15 billion in liabilities and avoiding criminal prosecution for board members. This is the motivation for bribery. Any normal jurist would expect the banks to attempt to bribe a judge. So when the very judge tells the court ‘the key evidence is missing from the evidence bundle.’, and pens a restraining order against me, there should be no doubt he was bribed. It is beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was emailed to the court alongside the claim documents, as the court were co-recipients in documents served on all defendants. As the represented party it was the defendants’ job to file the evidence against them, however painful that was. JACO said this was within Simon Brown’s ‘case management powers.’ That is an outright lie isn’t it?
HSBC’s restraining order not only blocked due action for gold rigging, it blocked due exposure for the cartel’s money laundering – and it is easily possible it gave Deutsche Bank just enough time to destroy the paper trail listing the recipients of the money laundering – a serious conspiracy to commit fraud and a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Paul Kernaghan, head of JACO, (he who said that he could not believe Deutsche Bank would launder money) has denied the treasury its cut of the £65 billion. He refused to commission a transcript of the hearings to B40BM021 at public expense, even though there were some twenty allegations of misconduct levied to his body, and the cost to the British investor would be enormous were the defendants to be guilty and to have avoided legal liability. He was a co-recipient to the letters sent to the Lord Chief Justice Baron Thomas. He thus knew that Thomas was covering up the fact Charles Haddon-Cave and Ian Burnett were in no position to contradict the allegations made against Simon Brown QC.
You can see here the LC Liz Truss violates the government’s own FOIA laws, refusing to answer a simple yes/no question:
So we can thank the obstinacy of all these people for a loss to the treasury of £15 billion. How many billions in gold has gone into the hands of ISIS activists I wonder. And how much was spent bribing the judiciary.  ‘Enemies of the People’ was entirely apt.
Mark Anthony Taylor
Stratford
UK
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s