This is what i was going to put in the appeal,
“in any proceedings the Court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the Court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it”
The guilty pleas of Marshall Joseph, I have mentioned different forms of evidence which the prosecution may rely upon, and in relation to both questions you have read a vast amount of evidence. But there is one source of evidence that specifically relevant to the first question of whether the prosecution has proved the existence of a conspiracy to defraud, at least so far as counts 1,2,4 and 5 are concerned. And it comes from the fact that Marshall Joseph has pleaded guilty to those counts, that is in admissions. But I tell you when it was given in evidence, it explains the reason he is not on trial.
Many of us borrow money to buy our house. Commonly we would say, “I’ve got a mortgage”. But you can also have a loan which is exactly the same. Creating the charge on a property is exactly the same and has the same function it is just in a different context: one uses mortgage and in another context you use a charge.
And you have seen in this case so that you will now never forget the TR1, at least, even if you are fortunate enough not to need to see a CH1 or the CH4 or whatever. And you have seen lots of them and how they can be obtained. And they are very precise at the time at which they are issued. You can have a look at the title on a particular day, and then see whether a month or two later it is different. And of course we have that. And different entries are put on depending on: change of owner, to use the lay term, or, depending upon the charges; but there are all sorts of different types of charges which can be put on them.
Payment of £50,000.00
“What of count 4. We know BR receives £50k. We say that is repayment of money owed by AK . AK accepted say undertaking. Crown say whatever route he gets proceeds of fraud. We can test that quite easily, look at 5.4d. Look at bottom see Redbox gets £50k. Crown say proceeds of fraud. HANDF loan £385k on strength of securities shown top of page that goes to Elliot Stephens. They deduct £36k, that’s interest costs and fees, 1st month’s repayment. So Wisemove receive £348k give or take. £317k goes to casino account of AK at 50 St James. £5,850k goes to flywheel £7,706 goes to Wisemove. That if you add it all up leaves £18,130. That’s what’s left. Just apply acid test does BR receive £50k from fraud or not. Know he doesn’t’ because £50k would take total above that received. Numbers don’t add up to support case that BR is paid from this fraud. BR is paid because strength of his undertaking. Prosecution’s case doesn’t hold water on suggestion benefitted from fraud. Teach new fraud investigators follow the money. Find that £50k not the proceeds of this fraud at all. People tend not to commit offences to assist them repayment of legally enforceable debts.”
HHJ Atherton left open to the jury the question of did the applicant receive £50,000.00 from a fraud on H and F Finance secured on 364,368 and*****Worsley. Defence counsel had made it clear that the Crowns evidence could not support a payment of £50,000.00.
Payment received into Wise Move Solicitors
Payment to Kapikanya
Payment to Fly Wheel
Wise Move Solicitor Fees
Red Box Trading Ltd a Company (Applicant)
HHJ Atherton has made no reference to the applicant in his summing up in respect of the loan made by Mr Woodruff, NONE at all. The only reference to this incident is the unsupported allegation of the prosecution. A simple review of the evidence will confirm this position. I refer you to pages 87 to 98 of HHJ summing up. The crown refer to a search done by my employee but this was done 6 weeks after the fraud had occurred, this was agreed with DC Moylon in his cross examination.
Once Joseph has obtained title by void disposition he makes loan applications in his own name, with no fraudulent documents. Joseph obtains professional valuations on all the properties in his name, has the loan agreements in his name and has the loan funds sent to his bank account. The only fraudulent act by Joseph is not declaring that he is not the legal owner of the properties. [see diagram 1 FIG 3]. From this Kapikanya runs a series of independent frauds [See diagram 1 FIG 1]. In some case he recruits imposters and in others he does not need the imposters only the fraudulent paperwork to support the appearance of a vendor. Each participant is only aware of the adjacent parties and their role in the conspiracy. (R v Griffiths  21 Cr App R 94; R v Griffiths  1 QB 589; Gerakiteys v R (1984) 153 CLR 317). A review of the evidence supports this position, we do NOT need a retrial to establish these facts, its is already in the crowns evidence.
“Now you have in the papers the transcript of the interviews and I spoke on Friday (this is now Monday) about the relevance of that and the support , the weight that it has. It is not the same as giving evidence which is subject to cross-examination. And questions that were posed, Well what more could he have said in relation to it than he has been asked to?”
What else could he referred to:-
I could go on
Thanks response but I am afraid I am unable to continue following your response above.
Opting out .