Insolvency And Law Scam Update

Insolvency and Law Scam Update.

In our previous articles on the Insolvency and Law Scam we highlighted the dishonesty of the company and the people involved in it. Those articles can be viewed on the links below. Since then we have uncovered other examples of dishonesty and criminal behaviour which we report on below.

Article 1 – Peter Murray and the Insolvency and Law Scam – LINK TO ARTICLE

Article 2 – Insolvency and Law Update – LINK TO ARTICLE

Article 3 – Insolvency and Law Threatens Closure

INSOLVENCY AND LAW LTD – FAKE AWARDS REMOVED FROM WEBSITE

Our previous articles highlighted that Insolvency and Law Ltd was falsely claiming to be a “multi-award winning consultancy”. The awards it was displaying on its website were fake. This was disputed by Insolvency and Law Ltd in a letter to Safe Or Scam. They claimed the awards were real and had been genuinely earned. That was a complete lie. We wrote to Peter Murray at Insolvency and Law asking him to explain how his company could win Law Awards three years running when it has no lawyers. We asked him what legal services it had provided which justified those awards because it would be a criminal offence for Insolvency and Law to provide any legal services at all. It is not registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Mr Murray declined to answer. However, those fake awards have now been removed from the Insolvency and Law website.

Insolvency and Law Ltd displayed fake awards in order to deceive the public into believing the company was something it was not. The good news for investors who paid money to Insolvency and Law Ltd is that if they relied upon those awards as a reason to enter into a transaction with the company, they may have a claim against Insolvency and Law Ltd for obtaining money by false misrepresentation. It may be worth a group of investors joining together to take legal advice to recover their payments made to the company.

Insolvency and Law Scam Update.

BRITENA CLARKE LIED TO A UK COURT

On 12^th July 2023 Britena Clarke submitted a Witness Statement to a the High Court in London relating to an insolvency case. She signed a STATEMENT OF TRUTH which included the words:

“I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth”.

The witness statement was made in relation to an application by Insolvency and Law Ltd to take control of a winding up petition. In applications such as this the court requires “full and frank disclosure of all facts which may affect the application”. This means that Britena Clarke was required to inform the court of everything she was aware of relevant to the application, even if was damaging to the I&L application.

In Britena Clarke’s Witness Statement she stated that on 3^rd July 2023 Insolvency and Law Ltd wrote to the Petitioner to seek its voluntary consent to be replaced. She stated that as at 12^th July 2023 “no response has been received from the petitioner”. That was a lie. Britena Clarke and Peter Murray received a written response from the petitioner on 6^th July 2023, a full six days before she signed and submitted her witness statement. The problem for Britena Clarke was that she did not want the court to see the reply. It would have been extremely damaging to the Insolvency and Law Ltd application and it was certain that the application would have been dismissed. She therefore decided to lie to the court stating there had been no response.

The response received by Britena Clarke refused to accept I&L’s application and provided the following reasons:

• the debtor company had disputed ILL’s right to the debt; and
• ILL had already withdrawn a petition against the debtor company in return for it paying protection money to ILL on an ongoing monthly basis; and
• it was the petitioner’s belief that transferring control of the petition to I&L would lead to I&L demanding more protection money from the debtor company. The last demand I&L made to the debtor company was for £60,000 per month protection money; and
• the loan note investor had terminated his Deed Of Assignment with I&L and was in dispute with it over its attempts to use his debt to blackmail the debtor company, so I&L didn’t even have a valid debt and should declare the dispute it had with the investor to the court; and
• the petitioner had been informed by the debtor company’s solicitor that legal proceedings had been started against Insolvency and Law Ltd.

Britena Clarke, with the approval of Peter Murray, decided the best course of action was to lie to the court and say that the petitioner had not responded. She was aware of all five of the above points from previous correspondence but did not disclose any of them to the court as she was legally obliged to do.

This has implications for any party involved in legal proceedings with Insolvency and Law Ltd. The company and its employees are prepared to lie in court so it is important to challenge every statement they make.

CRIMINAL ACTION – PETER MURRAY AND BRITENA CLARKE CONSPIRE TO FORGE A DEED OF ASSIGNMENT WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

Although lying to a court is a serious offence, forging a Deed Of Assignment with the sole purpose of defrauding a company into paying an investor’s money to Insolvency and Law Ltd is far worse. It is a serious criminal offence, but that is exactly what Peter Murray and Britena Clarke did.

The intended victim, who we will call Mrs A, has filed a fraud report with the UK Police under reference number NFRC230906175901. We have a copy of that fraud report.

The Background

Mr & Mrs A jointly owned loan notes in four linked loan note companies. Jointly-owned means all the loan note contracts were in the names of Mr A and Mrs A together.

Mr A entered signed a Deed Of Assignment with Insolvency and Law Ltd on 9th November 2022. The DOA was produced by Insolvency and Law Ltd after reviewing the loan note contracts and documents. The DOA was in the name of Mr A only and was signed by Mr A.

Insolvency and Law Ltd used Mr A’s DOA to demand and receive the protection money payments of £129,000 from the companies. It was also paid £280,000 by three of the companies to clear their debts. This left one company which owed a debt of just under £500,000. We will round it up to £500k to make the explanation easier.

Mr A wrote to Insolvency and Law Ltd in June 2023 to terminate the DOA when he was informed that Peter Murray had used the DOA to blackmail the companies into paying £129,000 which was not going towards paying off the debt and would not be paid to Mr A.

Peter Murray was very keen to maintain the DOA with Mr A because he wanted a share of the outstanding £500k. He therefore agreed to release £100k from the £280k he held to Mr A, but would not release any more unless Mr A withdrew his termination of the DOA and agreed to support I&L’s right to be paid the £500,000. Mr A refused to withdraw the termination. By now he had come to realise that Insolvency and Law had conned him into signing a DOA which allowed I&L to deduct unlimited costs from his money.

Unfortunately, the company had already paid £410,000 to Insolvency and Law Ltd before it was spotted that Mr A’s DOA was in his name alone. Mrs A had not signed Mr A’s DOA (except as a witness to his signature). She was not named on the front page of the DOA and was therefore not bound by its terms. This was a serious error on the part of Insolvency and Law Ltd because it meant that it had no entitlement to receive any of the money. When loan notes are jointly-owned both owners must give their consent to the assignment. The company commenced legal proceedings to recover the £410,000 by issuing a Statutory Demand and has refused to pay any of the £500,000 to Insolvency and Law Ltd until the legal position between Mr and Mrs A, and Insolvency and Law Ltd has been resolved.

Mr A and Mrs A are no longer together. Mr A had not informed his wife that he had terminated his DOA in June. She was effectively in the dark about the dispute between her husband and I&L. This gave Peter Murray and Britena Clarke an opportunity to deceive Mrs A.

Britena Clarke wrote to Mrs A on 15^th August 2023 advising her that Insolvency and Law Ltd had paid £100,000 to her husband but had just realised that the loan notes were jointly-owned so half of that money should have gone to Mrs A. This email was the first time Mrs A had ever received anything from Insolvency and Law Ltd. Britena Clarke said they were holding money which should be paid to Mrs A but did not specify how much money they were holding. Ms Clarke attached a single signature page to her email and said that if Mrs A signed it I&L would be able to release money to Mrs A. Mrs A signed it on 18^th August 2023 and her signature was witnessed by her daughter. Mrs A thought it was odd that Britena Clarke told her she must never mention this to anyone and must never share the emails or documents with anyone.

On 29^th August 2023, Mrs A received an email from the debtor company which said it had received a DOA in Mrs A’s name from Insolvency and Law Ltd. The DOA was dated 9^th November 2022 (the same date as Mr A’s DOA). The company asked if it was genuine. Mrs A said that it was not and asked to see a copy of it. She was sent a copy and was shocked to see that Insolvency and Law Ltd had attached four Deed Of Assignment pages that she had never seen before to her signature page, had dated the DOA as being entered into on 9th November 2022 and was claiming ownership of the £180k already paid to I&L plus the outstanding £500,000 debt. Both Mrs A and the witness have reported the matter to the Police.

Mrs A wrote to Peter Murray informing him that she had reported this as a fraud and demanded that he repay the £180,000 back to the debtor company so that it could distribute it fairly between herself and her husband. Peter Murray refused. She also demanded that he write to the debtor company relinquishing all rights to her and her husband’s money because I&L had no rights to it. Peter Murray refused.

Mrs A is determined to prosecute Peter Murray and Britena Clarke. She has asked us if we would assist her legal representatives in the prosecution which we are happy to do. The lesson here for every company targeted by Insolvency and Law Ltd is to question the Deed Of Assignment because there is clear evidence I&L has forged a DOA in this case. It is therefore likely it has forged DOAs in other cases.

WARNING:  INSOLVENCY AND LAW LTD RIPS OFF ITS CLIENTS

The situation for Mr A and Mrs A is not over, but they have a clear legal right to all of their money and are taking legal advice. Peter Murray still thinks he can profit from this case even though it is not lawful. He has written to the debtor company with an offer. He has offered to reduce the £500k debt amount by the £129k protection money payment it received, if the company would agree to accept I&L is the lawful owner of the debt and pays the balance of the debt money (£371k) to Insolvency and Law Ltd in full and final settlement of the debt.

There are two reasons why he is doing this. The first is because it is an attractive option for the company. The company recovers the £129k protection money payments without having to take I&L to court. The second reason is that if he can get the balance of £371k paid to I&L he will be holding £550,000 of Mr and Mrs A’s money. He will use that money to defend against any legal action Mr & Mrs A bring against Insolvency and Law Ltd. They would have to use their own savings to finance their legal action. Fortunately the company is not dishonest and has said it will pay the debt to the rightful owner. The company believes the rightful owner to be Mr and Mrs A but is awaiting the outcome of the legal action. If the rightful owner is Mr and Mrs A it will pay them the full £500k. If the rightful owner is Insolvency and Law Ltd it will pay £371k.

There will be many people who have signed DOAs with I&L who are thinking that Peter Murray can’t just reduce their debt by any amount he sees fit. Well, here’s the bad news. The DOA which everyone signs allows him to do that. The clause is generally found in Section 3 (Consideration) and it states:

“In circumstances where the full Debt is not recovered the Assignee [I&L] shall in its sole discretion determine whether the amount received in respect of the Debt or proposed by the Debtor shall be accepted by the Assignee in full and final settlement of the Debt”.

We honestly have no idea why investors would ever sign a Deed Of Assignment with Insolvency and Law Ltd.

High Street GRP Investors

We know of two law firms  which are prepared to take over claims against CTMS and have asked a third to consider doing so. Both firms have also offered to pursue Insolvency and Law Ltd on behalf of investors to recover the upfront fees paid to Insolvency and Law Ltd. If there are groups of investors in other cases who have paid Insolvency and Law Ltd we would like to hear from them because the same offer applies. If a group has already appointed a law firm we are happy to assist that law firm in its recovery activity.

Another update was provided in November 2023 highlighting that the Insolvency & Law Ltd bank account has been frozen by Co-Operative Bank. The update can be viewed on this LINK.

Insolvency and Law Scam Update. Insolvency and Law Scam Update. Insolvency and Law Scam Update. Insolvency and Law Scam Update.