My Fight for Justice

A Case In England

The case in England started in 2006 and was initially a simple case of blackmail, greed and jealousy, from my side total neglect, due to my illness. However, it becomes a back-stapping and payback for many, my many enemies, who saw an opportunity to get me for god. However, it was Denmark that provided the ammunition in using a material that was 28 years old, mostly fabricated by the Bagmandspolitiet and the Danish Courts.

Denmark gave the British the ammunition, to prosecute me by an in-absentia trial, simply blacken and disgrace my character in front of the 12-member jury. That was easy when the judge acted as the second prosecutor and the defendant was not there. Neither any defence lawyers to question the selected witnesses, which was led by the prosecution. No defence lawyers, defence documentation or witnesses.

The Classic Story of Jealousy and Greed
As to the background of this “criminal” case, it is the old story of jealousy and greed. Jealousy by an old woman, at the time in her late 80s, who slowly became a corps from alcohol abuse, a woman I briefly had an affair with 20 years earlier. The greed from her single child, a son in his mid-sixties, who had all his life lived on his mother’s money, being a drug addict.

As to the blackmail, it goes back to 1987, when I again met the woman (Pamela Schutzmann) at the Royal Academy in London; I had known Pamela after meeting her and her husband in 1976. We were skiing in Arosa, I was with my wife and sons and a friend, a senior US diplomat Edward Waltmann, who had his wife and two daughters along.

The neglect goes back to the time that my soulmate in life, Romana, was dying and fighting for the last months of her life, needing me by her side. I simply did not have the mind at the time to deal with such an outrageous claim by someone who had blackmailed me for years and who both Romana and I had helped so much through many years. First by getting her property in Barbados back, after she had given it to her 20 years plus younger boyfriend. Later we had to practical supervise Pamela daily through 10 years, as she regularly fell down the stairs drunk or ended up someplace drunk. Despite this, my soulmate looked after her as her “English” mother and even brought Pamela into our own family and group of friends.

My soulmate Romana died in 2008 and my life becomes so black and negative that I only wanted to leave this life. Somehow, I did not die and the dark winter night I passed through has given me the strength to go on. In addition, my many beautiful grandchildren have given me the strength to go on fighting for justice.

I still live with the deep scars from my solitary confinement in Denmark, they will never leave me, and the experience is implanted in my soul. Despite all this, I maintain that I have had a good life, as I have been privileged to much love and experience. I have also been blessed by having healthy sons and grandchildren, all enjoying a privileged life, and living all over the world.

What really makes me fight for justice, is the Danish authorities conspiracy together with the British, with an in-absentia trial in the UK, leaving me to rot for years.

The most choking and deplorable revenge by the Danish Ministry of Justice

My Arrest in London

On the 26th of August 2006, I flew to London, from our home in the South of France, for my normal monthly 24 hours visit. I had a luncheon appointment and wanted to visit a friend in hospital and thereafter see a sick old lady, Pamela Schutzmann, to give her cash and advice, as I acted as her sole trustee with the sole power of attorney.

After a very satisfactory lunch at White’s Club in St. James’s, I went to visit my Danish friend for 35 years, John Jensen, at Wellington Hospital.  Considering I stayed longer with him and was running later, I telephoned Pamela and suggested we make dinner together, something she agreed with, although she sounded odd, I thought she, as usual, had drunk too much.

Arriving at her property in Hampstead, North London, I was met by two police officers, telling me that I was under arrest. It came like a bolt of lightning from the sky, as I had absolutely no knowledge as to why.  Asking why, I was told that Pamela’s 67 years old, only son, a drug abuser all his life, had contacted the police earlier that morning and accused me of defrauding his mother.

Seeing Pamela in her doorway, I was shocked, since I had known her since 1976 and had acted as her trustee for many years. She had deteriorated badly in the last years, due to a lifelong abuse of alcohol with a full-blown psychological disorder; alcohol’s effects on her had cause psychological dysfunction to develop for years. Even reaching, at the time, the age of 87 years, she lived with chronic Korsakoff’s psychosis symptoms with a memory problem, forgetfulness and even paranoia and alcoholic neuropathy.

At the same time of my arrest, the police search my apartment in Portman Square, seizing a large amount of papers and my laptop. Among the files on the laptop and documentation was a draft to a book, I had been working on for some time.

The book was about my experiences, as chairman of The Mayfair Society and the local appointed amenity group for Mayfair, the Residents’ Association of Mayfair. During many years, I had witnessed’s systemic corruption by local politicians and the London police.  I helped to expose this corruption very early at Westminster City Council, ultimately leading to the leader of the Council, Lady Porter, running to Israel.

As to the systemic police corruption, many officers had been prosecuted and jailed. All this material in my apartment, no doubt aroused the police interest. My notes for the book included my experience with all the injustice in Denmark, with a huge amount of material of the case at the ECHR in Strasbourg.

It was a low-rank police detective Mark Loftus, who arrested me, he showed aggressive bias against me, I first thought, because of his name it was someone related to a property developer who I had fought at Westminster Council planning. Not only this aggression against me but worst DC Loftus showed he did not understand my relationship with Pamela, who my partner-in-life called her English mother, making Pamela be part of our family for years.

I was taken to Holborn police station, where I was told that I was accused of defrauding Pamela for millions, stealing her property and arranging a robbery at my villa in South of France, the year earlier. All complete untrue and most outrageous. All rubbish and just simply stupid, however, such accusation was so overwhelming that it caused me to collapse with bad pain in my left arm and chest pains and a doctor was called. Since, the police did not like what his diagnose and advice as to me, another doctor was called. This doctor confirmed what the first doctor had advised that I should be taken to a hospital immediately.

After spending the night in the hospital and released on police bail, the doctors at the hospital told me to see immediately our doctor in London, which, I intended to do.

Since it was early morning, I went first for breakfast at The Connaught in Mayfair to recover a little after the ordeal. Considering that I felt bad and my doctor was not in his office that day, and in the country, I stayed at the hotel for lunch, after which the manager suggested I had better stay at the hotel overnight, although, my apartment was a close bye.

After having a bad night, I left the hotel in the morning walking to our apartment, just before reaching the place; I felt terrible and just made it across the pavement into the reception of the apartment building where I collapsed. The concierges called an ambulance, which took me to St. Mary’s hospital close by in Paddington.

I stayed in the hospital’s special coronary units for a week, having a comprehensive examination and test, leaving, I was told that I was not allowed to fly home. Therefore, I took the train back to the South of France together with my partner-in-life, Romana, who had flown to London upon my arrest.

Arriving home, I shortly after went into the Princess Grace hospital in Monaco for some days and I become under a strict regime of treatment by our doctor Philippe Scemama.

Considering, I found the allegation in London outrageous and totally without merits, I offered to step down as a trustee and hand everything over to Pamela Schutzmann and her lawyers. My lawyer confirmed this in September to the police; apparently, the police ignored this, as obviously, they wanted a case. Further, when lawyers got involved on my side, they advised against this action, since I had done nothing wrong and should remain, unless, the police would drop the case.

My confrontation with the Danish Inquisitorial legal system

My confrontation with the Danish Inquisitorial legal system ended up at the European Court of Human Rights, where Denmark lost its first case. I had not received a fair trial, the foundation of justice.

Article 6 of the Convention is most important, if one does not receive a fair trial, justice could not be considered and any part of the trial, the case, the administrative procedure, an indictment must be subjected to questioning.

However, for me at the time Article 3 of the Convention was far more important, because of the torture I was subjected to in my long solitary confinement. Considering I daily lived the deep scars from this torture, I felt, this was the most serious complaint. Although, the Commission pointed out to me that Article 6 was far more serious.

The Danish authorities prevented me from making the most serious complaint about me to the European Commission of Human Rights, namely about my 309 days of total solitary confinement, ending in a 55 days hunger strike. This they were able to do as they held all communication with the Commission back for 26 months, something, totally against the Convention itself.

The British authorities were even more calculated by making certain that my Application to the Court of Human Rights would not happen, as to my in-absentia jury trial in London. They deliberately took a laptop (which had taken me 15 months to get from the Ministry of Justice and used at the time for near two years). This laptop had the complete application to ECHR with all the documentation (over 600 pages) in January 2017, only days before the six months limit, imposed by the Convention in Article 35.

The authorities knew, from listening to my telephone conversation with my lawyer and also from the printing, I had done in the prison library, that this application was going to the ECHR in late January 2017. Moreover, I had to file this application by the end of January 2017. My complaint was not alone against the UK but also Germany, who had not complied in a proper way with the European Arrest Warrant.

I should never have been extradited from Germany, the British had even lied to the highest court in Germany the Bundesgerichthof, informing them that I was only subject to a “criminal investigation” in the United Kingdom, not that I already had been given a sentence of ten years from an in-absentia trial. Worse, been without any defence representation in any shape or form. If all this had been known by the Germans, they could not extradite me, since this would be against their own laws.

Considering the Danish consulate in Germany knew about my arrest, it is my contention, that they should have investigated the validity of this European Arrest Warrant, after all, I was old and ill, placed in the prison hospital. I did not receive any help from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“Adversary”

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘adversary’ as ‘one’s opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute’. That definition goes some way to explaining the adversarial legal system in the England and Wales under which, essentially, representatives from each party take opposing positions to debate and argue their case, whilst the Judge’s role is to uphold principles of fairness and equality and to remain neutral until the very end when he gives judgement.

The facts as to my 6 weeks in-absentia jury trial in London in 2008-9:

      • No defendant present 

      • No defence representation

      • No defence documentation

      • No defence witnesses

So no adversary’ as ‘one’s opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute – only the side of the prosecution. According to amicus (see his Submission to the Court), the Court appointed counsel to the Court, the Judge acted as the second prosecutor and all the witnesses had been led. Amicus, Edward Jenkins QC came from the same chamber as the prosecutor. Edward Jenkins also stated in his submission that the trial was against Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The judge ignored all his submissions, even she had appointed him to advise the Court. Even his submission that the EAW could not be used since I had not received a fair trial.

I had never commented as to the outrageous allegation, nor did I ever see the final indictment, which had been altered during the trial. Anyone would ask a very simple question, “where is justice?”

Until this event, I believed in the British justice system, I could not have been more wrong. Not only has the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom been brought to its knees by funding cuts, but it is also set up in such a way that its mistakes cannot be effectively identified, rectified, or learned from.

I was the sole trustee of Pamela Schutzmann’s foundation in Panama and had the general power of attorney for more than 10 years

In considering the whole case in London, the allegation, indictment and the in-absentia trial, one have to the fundamental understanding that I was the trustee for Pamela Schutzmann’s foundation for many years. 

A trust is a legal act by means of which a person, this case Mrs Pamela Schutzmann, (called the settlor) transfers assets to a person called the trustee (me), who will manage or dispose of them in favour of a beneficiary or beneficiaries. The assets of the foundation are legally under the ownership of the trustee, the foundation can purchase and hold any assets of any kind and can enter into any agreement.

The control and administration of the assets in the trust is the power of the trustee. I was the trustee of Pamela Schutzmann foundation, Spazi Foundation in Panama, (see Spazi Foundation Regulation’s dated the 11 January 2005)  which through a company Spazi Properties SA held the assets of her home in London, in addition to shares in other companies.

Prior to becoming her trustee, I had two-signed Power of Attorneys, including a so-called General Power with control of all her personal assets. 

Moreover, when I arranged to transfer her Foundation from Liechtenstein to Panama, I become the sole trustee and received full signed indemnification from Pamela Schutzmann. Under this indemnification provision, Pamela Schutzmann pledged to hold the trustee harmless against all financial consequences associated with litigation. The trustee, me, was indemnified against claims asserted in any kind of action (civil, criminal, administrative, actual, threatened, pending, or completed), and for payments in virtually any form (judgments, fines, settlement sums, and lawyers’ fees).

Pamela Schutzmann wanted and had signed for the transfer of her property, witnessed by an independent lawyer. Prior to Romana Labunski, our son Alexander and I was the appointed directors of the Company, which owned her property, Pamela Schutzmann had signed indemnification for all the directors. Later on, Pamela Schutzmann signed a special indemnification for the mortgage taken out on the property later, as Romana Labunski was against taking out this mortgage. Pamela Schutzmann received all the proceeds from this mortgage. Despite this, the property was in 2012 transferred back to Mrs Schutzmann, total unencumbered, due to her lies and false statement.

All a Cock and Bull Story

Pamela Schutzmann, a demented woman, at the time in her late 80s, suffering from Korsakoff’s syndrome and advanced dementia, coming up with a cock-and-bull story about my partner-in-life, her son and me, a story of highly dubious validity. Her criminal and drug-addicted son, living all his life of his mother’s money, decided one early morning, on August 2006, to call the police accusing my partner and me of stealing his mother’s estate.

For all his adult life, Vivian Schutzmann had been concerned about how to get more money out of his mother, apart from his monthly cash payment. He had heard about the attractive redevelopment plans I had in mind as to his mother’s property and the fact, that one of my sons had just given me one million cash as a present, hoping possibly to blackmail me. Apart from Vivian’s greed, his son Daniel, also a drug addict, who I last saw at the Savoy Hotel snorting a line of coke in the toilet, at his sister’s Fiona’s wedding, wanted more money out of the sick old lady.

Already, back in the early 90s, Vivian tried unsuccessfully, to blackmail his mother, threatening her with reporting her to the fiscal authorities as to her assets abroad if she did not hand over more money to him, he had received several million since his Jewish stepfather died, a stepfather who refused to adopt him. Neither Pamela nor her son was Jewish by birth.

The worst, Pamela Schutzmann went along with all this, making out she was blind and have been for years, despite she was driving up to 2005 her new BMW, a car I purchased in Germany for her a few years earlier. Moreover, she paid over ₤2000 for car insurance a year, just allowing her to drive.  Further, Pamela makes out that the more than seven million left in Switzerland at her husband’s death originated from the Holocaust, a total lie. All the money was made by her husband and her during 35 years, by bringing ingot of gold from there jeweller business, in London, to their Swiss bank accounts, avoiding the British fiscal authorities.

The irony, I had years earlier told her what to say if the fiscal authorities ever came to inquire, that they money first appeared after her husband’s death and it was from his Austrian Jewish family. I had gone through this scenario in details with her, after her son’s threatening letters.

Pamela was a good lair and most of the time played ignorantly. Despite, she was responsible for the accounts for decades, in their business, allowing her husband and her to amass a seven million fortune outside the reach of the British tax people. Pamela claimed to the police, after my initial arrest, that she can’t understand accounts and never have been able to. Pamela taught Romana Italian booking and VAT accounting!

Pamela was very devious and constantly lied about her relationship with her more than 20 younger boyfriend John Bishop. She lost more than  4-5 million during the years with him and she was for certain defrauded by John Bishop. A bankrupt, who now lives in a  ₤12-15 million property Valley Springs in Devon and frankly succeeded in outright stealing most of her money.

Every single cent came from Pamela, to buy the Valley Springs Estate, the redevelopment, the antiques and the classic car collection. John Bishop’s and Pamela’s cruises around the world and luxury living for many years, all came from Pamela. I held all the proof of this fraud by John Bishop among my files seized by the police, but all ignored by the police. Just to show one document, ignored by the British police, Pamela wrote a handwritten letter to one of John Bishop’s lawyers in September 1997. John Bishop took advantage of Pamela’s abuse of alcohol and simply stole the property, the cars and valuables. 

I sent Pamela to her lawyer

My partner Romana did not want to be co-executor of Pamela’s Will. Romana was concerned after ten years with all Pamela’s scheming and lies.  Romana, although thinking about Pamela as her English mother (Romana’s mother was Polish) and always protecting Pamela, Romana could not accepts all her lies, scheming and manipulations. After all, Romana had witnessed all this since 1976 when Pamela used to lie daily to her husband. I did not wish to be her sole executor and suggested that she should take her granddaughter’s husband James as a co-executor.

Pamela did not want to have a lawyer, partly, because she never wanted to pay for lawyers, I had recommended for her to appoint her personal lawyer together with me, acting as an executor.  Because I did not wish to be involved with her Will and found that she should see to this herself, I asked her to go to her lawyer to have this seen to in late 2004.

Pamela goes to her lawyer to change her Will and lie that she did not know she owns her property through her foundation in Panama, making out she can’t remember signing the transfer document. (See our email correspondence in 2004) note that we regularly communicated via email, Pamela was not blind at the time. I constantly had to “refresh” her memory, as she forgot from one day to another; I did this in emails apart from speaking to her when in London or where she visited us in South of France. (See email dated the 8 November 2004)

The police selected documentation from her laptop and my seized laptop, not disclosing the most important documentation, including hundreds of pages such as the above letter or even the police interviews like this of Mr Bernard Gentle, a company director. Documentation, which would have ridiculed her cock-and-bull story.

Bernard Gentle tried for several days to find out if there was any court hearings or trial in 2008. After being told by various London courts, including the courts where the in-absentia trial took place, that there was no court hearings or trials taking place with my name, Bernard Gentle decided himself to go around to each courtroom. After visiting more than 17 courtrooms, he saw Pamela sitting outside a courtroom. When he approached her, she shouted out that she had never met this man!  In entering the courtroom, he did not see any jury only lawyers and the judge. When he asked what was taking place, he was arrested.  He was later told that he was not allowed to attend the court. For him, it felt like being in Russia or China with their secret courts.

On the first day, of my arrest, the police saw on my seized laptop all about my case in Denmark and indeed the outline to a book, I was writing about the corruption in Westminster, including my involvement with the serious police corruption years earlier.

It is my intention to commence proceedings against Denmark, both related to my torture in 1980 and Denmark’s assistance in my case in London – the in-absentia trial 

For Denmark’s assistance to the British Prosecution and Denmark’s neglect of protecting me, as a Danish national, against an in absentia trial with entirely fabricated evidence. An in-absentia trial, which was against Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention. Further, to allow Germany to extradite me on false claims and documentation. It is clear from the submissions to the Court in November 2008, by the Court-appointed Counsel, that the European Arrest Warrant could not be used in my case, as an in-absentia trial would be against Article 6 of the ECHR.

Denmark failed to protect me, as a Dane, against legal abuse by another country and left me to rot in the worst possible place, without any help or assistance at an age well into the seventies, ill and frail – left me to rot.

It is my contention that Denmark bended backwards to assist the British prosecution and police to blacken my character and at the same time ignored my right as a Danish national to be protected. Specific when an in-absentia trial had been held, a trial in clear breach of the Convention. The aim was to blacken my character and justify the misdeed committed against my family and me.

Denmark translated and supplied the most damaging documentation to the in-absentia trial, documents, which was read our during the in-absentia trial to the 12 member jury.

A six weeks trial without me, the defendant being not present, without any defence lawyers, defence documentation and witnesses. These manufactured transcripts was 28 years old, and was dictated by Judge Claus Larsen.

The European Commission did not wish to see these hundreds of pages, back in the early 1980s, because they knew they had all been dictated, in order, to justify my long incarceration and the whole political case. These so-called “transcripts” were manufactured and doctored by “judge” Claus Larsen. When the case went forward to the European Court of Human Rights, the Court did not wish to see these transcripts, they knew the truth.

So manufactured documentation, which could not be of any use for the European Court of Human Rights, was 28 years later effectively used to blacken my person in front of 12 jury members and the Court. No defence counsel was present. The adviser to the Court and the in-absentia trial, the amicus, Edward Jenkins QC, wrote objectively about his observation and what he and his assistant witnessed. He noted that the judge acted as the second prosecutor and further, he requested that witnesses should not be led, which they appear, all had until that moment.

It is important to understand that this special appointed Court-appointed Counsel, came from the same Chamber as the prosecution and indeed, was only appointed few days before the trial, obviously having no time to look into the ten thousand selected documentation, nor proper prepare to advise the Court.

I have never seen the final indictment, nor ever the detailed judgement of this in-absentia trial, court records or documents that normally should be kept from such as a trial. However, I was subjected to the most terrible treatment at my late age in life, a treatment that caused me so many illnesses and suffering for years, when I was unable to fight due to illness and bereavement.

Living with injustice –

There is injustice throughout the world ranging from the oppression of cultural and religious groups, widespread economic and social inequality,  violence against women, and unequal access to medical care, legal protection, and education. Just think about the large social injustices faced by those living with impairments and disabilities around the world. For me to complain about the injustices against me, seem somewhat little in the world of injustices.

What happened to me, should be seen in relation to the fact that it was created entirely by the action of the Danish authorities, it was planned and deliberate with no consideration to what happened to the people involved. The Special Prosecution, Bagmandspolitiet, used harassment that its subtle nature meant that it was able to be plausibly denied.

What gave me the most weight in deciding to enter cyberspace was the great number of lies that surrounded my case on the Internet as well as the lies that surrounded the case of closing down healthy operating financial companies in 1980.

Lies that were compounded would ultimately crush the truth and cover up something which should have been exposed a long time ago.

Thousands of newspaper articles were published in Denmark at the time, (I listed more than one thousand five hundred newspaper articles to the European Commission of Human Rights, ECHR in 1983), mostly made up of stories with sensational headings, malicious lies and innuendoes; all very pre-judicial in my case. This was orchestrated by the Special Prosecution in their pursuit of covering up their injustices against my family, clients of the companies, the staff, and the companies themselves and me.

The Danish media ultimately created irrevocable harm to my family and me as you cannot get those lies and innuendoes back from the mind of the public. The media, at the time, totally controlled public opinion and the “truth” by creating their own stories, which become the truth in the public mind.

My defence lawyers, many clients and I had always hoped that the truth would be printed one day; but no such luck.  After more than thirty-seven years, the whole event in Denmark has been swept under the carpet as something the authorities did not wish to go into or revisit; neither did the media which participated actively in the injustices.

Denmark, which always claimed to be a decent democratic country, – “a real virtuous nation, better than the rest of the world’s countries”  and claiming to always adhere to the highest standard, certainly found itself “convicted” at the European Court of Human Rights because they did not provide me with a fair trial. A fair trial is the foundation of justice. 

The Outrageous Allegation in London

As mentioned I had known Pamela Schutzmann since 1976, where I met her and her husband skying in Arosa Switzerland. I was there with my wife and sons and a senior American and his family skying. I met again Pamela in 1987, when I was a patron of the Royal Academy of Art in London and active in the local West-End amenity group, although, I also lived in Zurich. At the time she told me that her husband had died a few years earlier and she let me into a brief encounter, which immediately I stopped, nevertheless, it become so negative that I even had to change my telephone number to escape her attention.

Years later, in 1995, our path unfortunately pasted again, as I was introduced to her again at the Royal Academy of Arts, by my soulmate Romana.  Six years before Romana had told me that she had worked for a woman Pamela and her husband Alfred back in the mid-seventies, when she first came to London. I had no knowledge of that this was the same Pamela, that I had known.

Romana considered Pamela as an “English mother”. Pamela told Romana that she had lost nearly all her money,  she had upon her husband’s death, more than ₤ 7 million. This all resulted in that Romana asked me to help Pamela to get some assets back, assets that she already had given to her more than 20 years younger boyfriend (John Bishop).

I succeeded in getting Pamela’s property in Barbados back and set about getting some of the other millions back, Pamela had put up all the money for the purchase of a large Devon estate, Valley Springs with a salmon farm. All this money Pamela had bestowed on her much younger boyfriend John Bishop.

Reluctantly, I later accepted to become Pamela’s sole trustee for her foundation in Liechtenstein and later when it moved to Panama and for many years holding her general power of attorney. Pamela was alone and had really only a few friends.

As to the allegation, everything Romana and I had done for Pamela through the more than 11 years, before my arrest, was for Pamela’s benefit and best interest, including protecting her from her son’s and grandchildren’s greed. The son had never worked and been a drug abuser all his adult life, he was 67 years at the time, he had several criminal conviction including serving years in prison in Iran.

Romana always felt very protective towards Pamela and took care of her in so many ways, nevertheless, Romana was concerned about Pamela many lies and her scheming. Romana and I had through the years, found Pamela lying about so many things and specific about her relationship with the much younger boyfriend John Bishop.

Through the many years, we took Pamela into our family of friends, as she had no friends in London. We introduced her to my family and even relatives from Denmark, who worked for the Danish police, we invited her regularly to the South of France, including for Christmas and Easter. She knew at least 60-80 of our friends and for many years in Mayfair, she was invited to many of our events ranging from charity balls to gallery openings and Garden Parties. We even took her along a few times to embassy receptions. She even misused a visit to the Austrian embassy, asking me to introduce her to the Austrian ambassador. We later found out that Pamela succeeded to get a special Austrian war widow pension, a pension she certainly had no right to receive, this fact, she hid from Romana and me for near 3 years.

The Robbery

As to the allegation of the robbery, in our villa, where we all were gassed, it was scandalous and a malicious allegation to even suggest that we had anything to do with this. A robbery, where the police immediately had been called by us and noted the robbery, which took place during in the night. Even our Alsatian had been subject to sedation.

We were all was interviewed, including our staff and Pamela, who stayed with us at the time. Our friend, the police chief of Monaco for nearly 40 years, George Lukomski, suggested to me, it was people close to the local police or Gendarmerie who could be behind this robbery, where we all was gassed.

The local police told us that it was criminals from the Balkan. Although many of our friends in South of France had been robbed and even gassed, we always felt secure as we lived on the mountain overlooking Monaco, Mont Agel, where there had never had been any robbery or serious crime. The reason, we had a very private road, constantly policed, leading up to Prince Rainier, the Prince of Monaco, family residence and on the top of Mont Agel mountain it was occupied by Nice Air Base, itself built on the former Ouvrage Mont Agel of the Alpine Line fortifications, headquarter for the Mediterranean with several thousand officers working there daily.

Only 12-14 private properties are located along this road, which also led to the Monaco Golf Course, owned by our next-door neighbour, Henry Rey, who also kept a private army of security people. Further, at the entrance of our villa, in the former caretaker’s house, lived Jacques de Provance and his wife Josette, he was the former director of entertainment in SBM, the company which owns many of the hotels and the Casino in Monaco. It was Prince Rainier who had placed them in this house after his wife Princess Grace died in his garden at Cap D’Air. Jacques had regularly worked with Princess Grace for many years and was the co-founder with Prince Rainier of the famous annual Circus Festival in Monaco.

Therefore, we felt very secure, moreover, the Gendarmerie and local police were closed bye (within 1500 meter) and no one could escape as the road could be closed, nevertheless, we were robbed.

Some months after the robbery, Pamela came for Christmas to stay with us. She told us that “everybody” in London thoughts it was an inside job. I had previously considered that either our gardener or some temporary staff could be involved, but that was a non-starter.  However, due to her dementia and drinking, the subject came regular up, when we spoke.

Going to London early January 2007

Considering that my partner-in-life, Romana was also subject to the outrageous allegation of defrauding Pamela, we planned to go to London on the 10th of January 2007 to be interviewed by the police. Romana and my adopted son Alexander were directors of a property company owned by Pamela’s foundation in Panama, a company that owned her property in Hampstead.  The company was owned by Pamela’s foundation and established primarily for fiscal purposes, as I had plans in hand for a large property development, where her property would be central. Plans had been made years earlier for large property development, such development could make Pamela millions in profit one day.

We never made it to London, as Romana went into a brain seizure on the night of the 3rd of January, resulting in serious brain surgery on the 12th of January and later in March at Nice University Hospital. Romana survived these two brain operations, but very ill attending treatment in Switzerland and France during the following 12 months before dying in March 2008. Romana’s death left me in total grief and sorrow with acute severe bereavement and depression, ending with a suicide attempt in 2012.

A Field Day for the Police

No doubt, the seizure of my laptop and all the documents from our London apartment, gave the British police a field day, since they could clearly see some of the enemies in my life, including, the Conservative from the Westminster City Council, the London police, several major property companies, not to mention the Danish authorities. As to the Metropolitan Police, I had even commendation from them having served on the local police West/End board. OK, I had been warned as to the Conservative Party and even about important members of the British establishment. I was warned by the most senior members of this establishment, including, a friend and member of the Privy Council, leading to us moving more permanently to the South of France.

Ministries have long memories

Denmark assisted in an in-absentia trial in the UK

Ministries have long memories, and 28 years after this injustice in Denmark, the Danish authorities assisted the British authorities to create fictitious criminal indictment: hold a six weeks in-absentia trial, with a jury of 12; without the defendant (me), without defence lawyers, defence documentation and witnesses.

I have to this day not even seen the final indictment. So after 28 years after the injustice in Denmark, a 6 weeks in-absentia trial, based on this manufactured indictment, on charges the defendant had never testified to as he was ill being treated by several doctors in South of France.

The judge at this in-absentia trial, acted as the second prosecutor and all witnesses were led, according to a special appointed legal counsel to the Court. The judge issued a sentence of ten years!  These deeds by the British authorities were even more vicious and abhorrent, considering my health and age.

The Danish authorities assisted the British prosecution and paid for a translation to English of the hundreds of “transcripts” dictated by Judge Claus Larsen, after the hundreds of court hearings, nearly 30 years before. This was documents that the European Commission of Human Rights, and later the Court did not wish to see.

The Commission knew this document was created, fabricated and made up, in order for the Danish authorities to justify the case against me. Nevertheless, nearly 30 years later, these transcripts were read out during the in-absentia trial in London. All to blacken my person at a time I was very ill and being treated at my home in the South of France by two doctors.

Last year was the 30th anniversary for my “win” against Denmark at the Court of Human Rights. This year 2020 it will be the 70th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, it will also in January be 40 years since my political motivated arrest for alleged tax evasion, closing my profitable companies.

The case in England has nothing to do with what happened in Denmark 40 years ago only to the extent that I was criminalised by the Danish authorities and this came immediately to the attention of the British police who investigated these outrageous lies since they found my documents related to the case in Denmark.

When I first heard about these outrageous claims in London, I asked one of the barristers who I worked with preparing my case for the European Court of Human Rights Kier Starmer to advise me as to get a criminal defence lawyer in London. Kier did, however, after five months, the lawyer thought the case was too small at the time, so I ended up with another lawyer.

My former defence barrister at the European Court of Human Rights Geoffrey Robertson QC assistant in the late 1980s was Kier Starmer. He was later appointed the Director of Prosecution in early 2009, in effect, after my in-absentia trial. He stepped down in late 2015 and lately appointed the leader of British Labour Party.

As for my criminal defence, I ended up with another defence lawyer spending £80,000 not even being presented with the final charges. When the lawyer asked me for £400,000 in cash to cover the legal costs for defending the case, I stopped, as all this had developed too far; moreover, I was in bad health and in a deep depression after the loss of my soul mate.

Considering I did not pay £400,000 to the lawyers they stood down. So I did not have any legal representation in England. After hearing about a “trial in absentia” I was shocked and even more distressed, nevertheless, I wrote to Kier Starmer in February 2010. (KIER STARMER QC) It is important to note reading this content of my letter to Kier Starmer in February 2010, that I at that time had no knowledge of the true facts as to this trial-in-absentia, moreover when writing to Kier Starmer I was ill taking strong medication.

What I did not know, that I had no defence, defence documentation and witnesses at this in-absentia trial. Even worse the judge acted as the second prosecutor and all witnesses were led. Worst still, that Denmark had assisted with the translation of the manufactured transcripts from the 1980s trial in Denmark and they were shown and read out to the 12 jury members at the in-absentia trial.

For obvious reasons I did not receive a reply at the time, moreover, Kier Starmer first becomes Director of Public Prosecution, after the judgement had been made in the in-absentia trial. Kier Starmer was prevented to contact me due to his legal position and undertakings as DPP. He is now Sir Kier Starmer and a Labour member of Parliament.  

The Danish Inquisitorial Legal System

My confrontation with the Danish Inquisitorial legal system ended up at the European Court of Human Rights, where Denmark lost their first case. I had not received a fair trial, the foundation of justice.

The Danish authorities prevented me from making the most serious complaint, for me, to the European Commission of Human Right, namely about my 309 days of total solitary confinement, ending in a 55 days hunger strike. This they were able to do as they held all communication with the Commission back for 26 months, something, totally against the Convention itself.

The British were even more calculated by making certain that my Application to the Court of Human Rights would not happen, as to my in-absentia jury trial in London. They deliberately took a laptop (which had taken me 15 months to get from the Ministry of Justice) with the completed application to ECHR with documentation in January 2017, only days before the six months limit, imposed by the Convention in Article 35. They had been listening to my telephone calls to my lawyer and family.

The British Adversarial Legal System

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘adversary’ as ‘one’s opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute’. That definition goes some way to explaining the adversarial legal system in the England and Wales under which, essentially, representatives from each party take opposing positions to debate and argue their case, whilst the Judge’s role is to uphold principles of fairness and equality and to remain neutral until the very end when he gives judgement.

We all have seen the scenes from British and American Courtrooms, with the prosecution on one side and the defence team on the other front bench of the court. Each side presenting their case and arguments to the jury and judge.

A strong defence is a vital component of a fair trial. The defence teams represent and protect the rights of the defendant (suspect or accused). All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before the Court.

The facts as to my in-absentia trial in London, a 6 weeks jury trial in 2008-9:

No defendant present • No defence representation • No defence documentation • No defence witnesses and as to these proceedings, I was first contacted at my home, in South of France, nearly one year later.

So no defence team was present to protect the rights of the defendant, me. So no adversary’ as ‘one’s opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute – only the side of the prosecution. Even worse.

Until this event, I believed in the British justice system, I could not have been more wrong. Not only has the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom been brought to its knees by funding cuts, but it is also set up in such a way that its mistakes cannot be effectively identified, rectified, or learned from.

My confrontation with the Danish Inquisitorial legal system ended up at the European Court of Human Rights, where Denmark lost its first case. I had not received a fair trial, the foundation of justice.

Article 6 of the Convention is most important, if one does not receive a fair trial, justice could not be considered and any part of the trial, the case, the administrative procedure and indictment must be subjected to questioning.

For me at the time Article 3 of the Convention was far more important, because of the torture I was subjected to in my long solitary confinement. This was the most serious complaint, I felt. Although, the Commission pointed out to me that Article 6 was far more serious.

The Danish authorities prevented me from making the most serious complaint about me to the European Commission of Human Rights, namely about my 309 days of total solitary confinement, ending in a 55 days hunger strike. This they were able to do as they held all communication with the Commission back for 26 months, something, totally against the Convention itself.

The British authorities were even more calculated by making certain that my Application to the Court of Human Rights would not happen, as to my in-absentia jury trial in London. They deliberately took a laptop (which had taken me 15 months to get from the Ministry of Justice and used at the time for near two years). This laptop had the complete application to ECHR with all the documentation in January 2017, only days before the six months limit, imposed by the Convention in Article 35.

The authorities knew, from listening to my telephone conversation with my lawyer and also from the printing I had done in the prison library, that this application was going to the ECHR in late January 2017. My complaint was not alone against the UK but also Germany, who had not complied in a proper way with the European Arrest Warrant.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘adversary’ as ‘one’s opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute’. That definition goes some way to explaining the adversarial legal system in the England and Wales under which, essentially, representatives from each party take opposing positions to debate and argue their case, whilst the Judge’s role is to uphold principles of fairness and equality and to remain neutral until the very end when he gives judgement.

The facts as to the in-absentia jury trial in 2008-9:

No defendant present • No defence representation • No defence documentation • No defence witnesses

So no adversary’ as ‘one’s opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute – only the side of the prosecution. According to amicus (see his submission to the Court), the Court appointed counsel to the Court, the Judge acted as the second prosecutor and all the witnesses had been lead. Amicus, Edward Jenkins QC came from the same chamber as the prosecutor. Edward Jenkins also stated in his submission that the trial was against Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. All his submission was ignored by the Judge.

I had never commented as to the outrageous allegation, nor did I ever see the final indictment, which had been altered during the trial. Anyone would ask a very simple question, “where is justice?”

Until this event, I believed in the British justice system, I could not have been more wrong. Not only has the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom been brought to its knees by funding cuts, but it is also set up in such a way that its mistakes cannot be effectively identified, rectified, or learned from.

I was the sole trustee of Pamela Schutzmann’s foundation in Panama for many years and in addition, had a general power of attorney for more than 10 years

In considering the whole case in London, the allegation, indictment and the in-absentia trial, one have to the fundamental understanding that I was the trustee for Pamela Schutzmann’s foundation for many years. 

A trust is a legal act by means of which a person, in this case, Mrs Pamela Schutzmann, (called the settlor) transfers assets to a person called the trustee (me), who will manage or dispose of them in favour of a beneficiary or beneficiaries. The assets of the foundation are legally under the ownership of the trustee, the foundation can purchase and hold any assets of any kind and can enter into any agreement. The control and administration of the assets in the trust is the power of the trustee. I was the trustee of Pamela Schutzmann foundation, Spazi Foundation in Panama, which through a company held the assets of her home in London, in addition to shares in other companies.

Prior to becoming her trustee, I had two-signed Power of Attorneys, including a so-called General Power with control of all her personal assets.

The ECHR Judgement Did Not Go Down Well in Denmark

This judgement against Denmark is the first case that Denmark lost, however, it did not, as expected, go down well with the Danish authorities, the academic faculties of law in Denmark and the media. The media did not really cover the judgement or this victory for me, only a few articles were published.

Many people in Denmark, (including jurists and academics), have, through the years, asked me to write about my case. Even some respected journalists have offered to help. Nevertheless, the events were too depressing and stressful for me to go back to even in writing.  It was a nightmare; a horror story which even today I bare very deep scars from, mental and physical scars from the 309 days long solitary confinement. Consequently, I am left telling my story today after all those years.

I had still hoped that one day, someone in a senior position in the Danish bureaucracy would have spoken out and told the truth. But that was never to be, at least until now.

I hope that this website and my blog, despite the many years which have passed, will bring more truth about my case and what really happened at the time to the surface. Perhaps even a Danish ‘WikiLeaks’? (Too much to hope for!) Moreover, because of the evolution of the financial market and the media reporting, the average investor in Denmark is so much more informed.

Hauschildt you have been selected – and judged”

In early July 1980, after I had spent more than five months in pre-trial solitary confinement, my defence attorney, Jørgen Jacobsen, came to me and said:

“I know that you have not spoken to anyone for weeks and now I am going on holiday, therefore I wanted to see you. What I am going to tell you now – I cannot do anything about. I am deeply sorry, nevertheless I still want to tell you. What I am telling you I have been told from the most reliable source and I do not see anything which can prevent all this from happening.

Hauschildt, you have been selected – and judged. You were selected because you are a ‘foreign Dane’ with no political affiliation or power. You work in a business which deals daily with Swiss, New York and London banks – with the movement of money in a financial market most people in Denmark do not know and cannot participate in. You controlled your business and did not employ many people, not like a factory owner.

Your clients can even use black money to buy gold and silver over the counter without registration, outside the control of the tax people. You are a bourgeois, when you drink beer you need a glass, Danes drink off the bottle. You even need a knife and fork to eat a sandwich (open Danish sandwich).

The popular press like to write about people like you, your children are at private boarding school. Yes, you are an ideal candidate for Bagmandspolitiet.

It does not matter that you have not done anything criminal; they will find a way to justify all of this since they have no other choice. After all, your business is now closed and you are here in solitary confinement for the fifth month. All the “stories” in the tabloid press cannot get you back out of the public mind. A picture has been painted of you and your companies – you have been judged.”

After five months in solitary confinement, the person that was telling me all of this information was not anyone, but advocate Jørgen Jacobsen.  He was considered one of the best and most experienced defence attorneys in Denmark at the time. He was a freedom fighter during the Second World War and started his law practice in 1951. Although he had always appreciated the better things in life, he was a member of the Danish Communist Party for many years.

In February 2006, I sat in the British Airways hospitality lounge in Heathrow Airport enjoying a light snack and a glass of champagne together with my life-partner. Our flight to Nice had been called but we decided to have another glass of champagne since we always went late to the plane.

Just as a stewardess came to us to ask us to board since we had a long walk to the plane, a man came over to me and said: “Sorry” in English, and then asked in Danish “Er De Hauschildt?” (Are you Hauschildt?). In answering yes to the question, the man continued to tell me that his wife recognised me, but he was not quite sure. Since my partner started to pull me away to go to the plane, he said to me: “My wife wants me to tell you that some of us in the Ministry did not like what we did to you.” (nogle af os i ministeriet kunne ikke lide hvad vi gjorde i mod Dem). Hearing this, I immediately asked for his name and card. He lightly shook his head and said: “Even on a senior civil servants pension I have to go quietly through the doors” (gå stille med dørene). At that moment I started walking away since my partner had left for the aeroplane and we did have a long walk to the boarding gate.

During my walk to the plane, I thought that he may not have necessary referred to the Ministry of Justice, in fact, it could have been the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Trade and Industry, not to forget the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On the plane, I told my partner what had happened, despite that she always told me to “let sleeping dogs lie” she said that I should produce something on the Internet. To publish a website and to at least put out the truth about what had happened and the injustices, hoping that someone would possibly come forward with the truth. We tried to continue our beautiful life but this would prove to be impossible due to a lot of other developments in the years to follow.

In the past few years, I have faced the death of my life-partner, my soul mate-in-life. I am also getting a lot older and am coming to the end of the road in my journey through life.  Lately, I have walked the long hard road of sorrow deep in the valley of despair.

I was fortunate enough in life to have had much love, what’s more, I enjoyed true love for many years after the terrible events in Denmark. Love is the most important thing in life.

Life for me today has come to a stage where almost everything – all external expectations, all pride, all fear for embarrassment or failure – falls away in the face of death, leaving what is truly important.

I have never been the same human being again since being in solitary confinement for three hundred and nine days. This solitary confinement affected me very badly; after more than thirty years I still suffer badly on most days from this torture. My life stopped during that solitary confinement and consequently, I have since lived my life as a totally different person.

The fact is that the investors and the general public in Denmark are far more informed about the financial markets, including people working for the authorities and in the banks, and this would in itself make my case impossible today.

The general public and even wealthy individuals in Denmark did not know much about the international financial market in 1980 and their sophistication with regards to trading. This allowed the Special Prosecution to make up mysterious and clouded allegations about my companies operations. Moreover, the Danish media, with their malicious lies, took advantage of public ignorance with regards to investing and their knowledge with regards to the international financial market and sold them sensational stories – as always.

As a pioneer of investing in precious metal for more than forty years, I have indeed always been well aware that this type of investment did not suit the tax happy politician and civil servants since the investor acquired transportable assets out of reach of taxation. Therefore, under communism and in many dictatorships, holding precious metal was strictly illegal and even punishable, as it was in China and Russia, with the death penalty imposed.

As to taxation, we now live in a time where fiscal authorities in Germany and other European countries have been paying criminals for stealing data from Swiss and Liechtenstein banks in order to find out who of their citizens have not paid tax. Germany even provided these criminals with new identities.

When Countries Act as Criminals

When countries act unlawfully as criminals, (which they have always done when the truth is told, just read WikiLeaks) the citizen should take note, especially when we are fortunate enough to live in Europe or the Western world.

The question is: should the government be allowed to do unlawful acts and consequently be allowed to cover this up?

All governments and their departments do commit acts that are against the current laws of the land. They also seem to be able to cover up such acts, by “adjusting the law” by making new laws and directives – always able to cover their tracks. However, all these politically elected and public civil servants believe that they have the legitimacy to decide what is best, even when they take unlawful actions.

We allow government and civil servants this right to “do what is best for us” like they have the moral and legitimate right, not forgetting the intelligence and know-how to take such actions.

In my own experience, we do allow this; I ran a “democratic” elected organisation and know that when something comes up, you just deal with it. The last thing you do is to ask hundreds or thousands of people, you will simply not be able to act. If you have made a mistake, one tries to sweep it under the carpet or justify it by changing “the rules”.

No doubt that the Danish government was “allowed” to decide that they had to take action against something which part would affect the established banks, the National Bank directives and currency rules at the time. Moreover, this was a legitimate way for people to hide their black money and possibly take these assets abroad without the control of the authorities since all the rules were not defined at the time. Furthermore, since the fiscal authorities had not seen the consequence of tax laws with regards to investing in commodities and currencies, they had to show that the arm of the law and tax man reaches out to every corner, draws in the land.  Hundreds of tax investigations and successful cases came about as a result of the closing SCE and my arrest.

I have no difficulty in accepting the above information; my difficulty is partly personal (for all the suffering my family and I had to endure) and also on behalf of all the investors who lost out as a result of the authorities’ unlawful action.

Firstly, authorities “should” try and play by the rules, which is after all, what they themselves are responsible for. Secondly, when injustices have been done and exposed, at some point the government should admit to such errors and call a spade a spade. Practically always, authorities do not have the spine to do so, partly because it will always mean that they have to admit to their own mistakes made by individual civil servants. With their power domain, they do not tolerate this, since it will almost always affect their reputation, the spirit of the system and collegial loyalty. Worst of all, for the politician, their electability is at stake – so they cover-up, and in most cases succeed, unless the opposition finds out. Just take the Tamil case in Denmark, what really happened to the top civil servants from the Ministry of Justice who had acted unlawfully and criminally – I am sure they enjoy their fat pensions today?

I told the court that I would go on a hunger strike in August 1980; I wanted to release a statement to the press. Judge Claus Larsen did not want this to happen. Part of this statement informed the public about a meeting in the Danish Law Society in the spring of 1980, where the chief for Bagmandspolitiet, Finn Meilby, proudly told an exclusive audience of a few lawyers that Bagmandspolitiet used the same methods against SCE as the police did in Chicago in the 1930’s case (wiretapping, disinformation and agent provocateurs).

The head of the US Supreme Court Chief Judges Louis Brandeis said about such methods: “If the state uses illegal and unlawful methods, it allows the citizens to be contemptuous of the law and take the law into their own hands”.

The Responsibility of the Free Press

The free media should be a guarantor for the citizen for exposing obvious injustices and wrongdoings by government and their civil servants. This responsibility of the “free” press should not be taken lightly.

The Danish media failed miserably with this responsibility in my case. Instead of seeing it through the authorities’ eye with true concerted intention, they went along as a lap dog and swallowed all the lies and misinformation that Bagmandspolitiet created to justify their actions. Moreover, the tabloid press livened up all the “stories” from false gold bars to black-market trading – all which committed them editorially to make a pre-judicial public trial; rubbing me with the right to be treated as guilty until proven guilty or innocent. According to Article 6 of the European Convention, the Danish media violated my right to a fair unprejudiced trial.

The European Court of Human Rights held an open court hearing on the 26 September 1988 on my case, in front of the full court of judges. The German, French, Belgian and Dutch television stations were there, but not the Danish State Television which had been used by the Danish authorities to create this trial by the media.

Other events made me take note such as the previous year’s impact after the “Icelandic Banking Saga” of Kaupthing Bank and IceSave, Lehman Brothers and the Bear Stern Bank bankruptcies. Lately, the criminal charges against Goldman Sachs and several Hedge Funds for insider trading exposed what really happens “behind” the scenes in banking and the financial world. The clever people try to outsmart the lesser, something which has always taken place and is nothing new. Even the respected JP Morgan bank was recently fined £33 million by the U.K. Financial Services Authority for basic compliance failures. These compliance failures meant that the bank had not protected twenty-three billion dollars’ worth of clients’ money by segregating it from its own funds over a seven-year period.  One may ask where the auditors were as well as all the lawyers to monitor the accounts!

The recent debate in Denmark about all the money which has been made by the banks on people’s pension funds through the many years, confirms my point. The banks are there to make money first and foremost from other people’s money – that is their business.Is there a place for morality on Wall Street any more? Niall Ferguson doesn’t think so, at least since Siegmund Warburg died in 1982. Ferguson believes that regulation won’t clean up the Street but that bankers need to be taught morals. For those who don’t know, Siegmund Warburg founded investment bank S.G. Warburg & Co. after WWII and ran the firm through the 1970s. The firm was eventually sold to UBS in the mid-’90s, and Warburg was famous for “relationship banking”.

Right now, Wall Street seems pretty far away from Warburg’s ideal of high moral standards and ethics. Bank CEO openly jokes about the culture of greed, with Blankfein’s “doing God’s work” comment and John Mack’s admission that “We cannot control ourselves.” These are the guys at the top. What I’m curious about is where morality fits into the lower levels of banking. Is it possible to work in a culture of greed and still consider yourself a “moral” person?

I’ll go first. I will be the first to admit that when I got started, all I thought about was the money. Well, that’s not exactly true. I also fancied myself something of a market wizard, so I pictured myself shepherding huge sums of money and capriciously micromanaging every aspect of my unfortunate underlings’ lives.

So there was a burgeoning God complex to go with my greed.
I certainly wouldn’t say I was a “moral” person, but neither was I “immoral”. It would be more accurate to say that I was “amoral”. I didn’t go out of my way to screw anybody (with a few notable exceptions), but I did make a number of client-related decisions based on how much money I would make. That said, we had an advantage back then over bankers and traders today: we actually made more money when our clients made money. It enabled us to harness our greed for moral purposes if you will.

Today, with the structure of management fees, 2 & 20, and the various other fee-generating machinations of the banks, clients no longer have to make money for bankers to reap huge bonuses. Back in the day, if your clients lost their collective asses you had a terrible year, and maybe even got fired. Today, hedge funds can drop by 50% in a year and even close up shop, but the manager is still going to rake 2% (or more in a lot of cases) of the AUM.

Banks today routinely short the same assets they’re recommending their clients purchase, they front-run their clients’ orders, and they blatantly (and proudly) mislead rating agencies and long-term customers just to make a buck. As Ferguson says, the guiding principle is no longer “Are we doing the right thing?” but “Can we get away with this?”
So I’m curious about how you guys square it with yourselves. Do you tell yourself that you’re just a tiny cog in a giant machine, that you’re just following orders? Or are you more like I was and just don’t really think about it, trying to maximize your personal return? Is morality even a consideration in finance? And how do you feel about the characterization of bankers as sleazy lowlifes? Has any of this made any of you consider another

Banks Pay Out More than $300bn in US fines

Banks have been fined a staggering $300 billion-plus since the financial crisis, according to the latest tally.

Most of these fines have been assessed for misleading investors about the underlying quality of the mortgages they packaged into bonds during the housing bubble. Selling practically worthless bonds to their clients and investors. Under normal circumstances, bankers would end up in prison, but this has not been the case.

Why have so few bankers gone to jail?

American financial history has generally unfolded as a series of booms followed by busts followed by crackdowns. After the crash of 1929, the Pecora Hearings seized upon public outrage, and the head of the New York Stock Exchange landed in prison. After the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s, 1,100 people were prosecuted, including top executives at many of the largest failed banks.

In the ’90s and early aughts, when the bursting of the Nasdaq bubble revealed widespread corporate accounting scandals, top executives from WorldCom, Enron, Qwest and Tyco, among others, went to prison. The credit crisis of 2008 dwarfed those busts, and it was only to be expected that a similar round of crackdowns would ensue.

The meltdown of Savings & Loans institutions in America in the 1980s resulted in that more than 1,000 bankers were convicted for their misdeeds. However, this has not been the case with the 2008 financial crisis, when the world’s financial system was brought to its knees and had to be bailed out by taxpayers at a cost of billions.

Millions of people lost their jobs or suffered from lower living standards because of the recession brought on by the financial collapse. Yet almost no bankers have faced legal sanctions for their part in precipitating the crisis. In Britain, which had to bail out three of its biggest banks, not one senior banker has gone on trial over the failure of a bank.

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/05/13/why-have-so-few-bankers-gone-to-jail

Banks and fines in billions

Bank of America $76.1    JPMorgan Chase $43.7
Citigroup $19                   Deutsche Bank $14
Wells Fargo $11.8            RBS $10.1s
BNP Paribas $9.3            Credit Suisse $9.1
Morgan Stanley $8.6       Goldman Sachs $7.7
UBS $6.5

Still, the fact that the only top banker to go to jail for his role in the crisis was neither a mortgage executive (who created toxic products) nor the C.E.O. of a bank (who peddled them) is something of a paradox, but it’s one that reflects the many paradoxes that got us here in the first place.

Wall Street banks and their foreign rivals have paid out $100bn in US legal settlements since the financial crisis, according to Financial Times research, with more than half of the penalties extracted in the past year. The sum reflects a substantial shift in political attitudes towards banks, as regulators and the Obama administration sought to counter perceptions that bankers have got off lightly for their role in the financial crisis. The milestone comes amid signs that banks’ legal costs could rise further, with a number of large banks still under investigation by the task force set up by Barack Obama in 2012 and the political backlash still underway.

During stress tests last week (November 2018), the Federal Reserve found that the biggest banks could still face a further $151bn bill for operational risk, repurchasing soured mortgage bonds and dealing with the falling value of buildings they own. Lawyers believe the bulk of this estimate is made up of expected litigation costs, suggesting the Fed is concerned that banks have misjudged badly their legal exposure.

Last week’s $885m deal between Credit Suisse and the Federal Housing Finance Agency took the settlements to $99.5bn, of which $15.5bn came from foreign banks, according to an FT study of 200 fines and restitutions since 2007. A little more than $52bn of the total was paid out in 2013 alone. America’s six big banks – JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs – had combined earnings of $76bn in 2013, just short of their collective peak in 2006. The settlements and restitutions range from a high of $13bn, agreed to by JPMorgan Chase in a deal with the justice department, to fines as low as $1m. They span penalties levied by agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and mortgage repurchases from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the quasi-governmental US mortgage insurers.

Money-laundering Violations by Dansk Bank

Danske Bank, Denmark’s biggest lender, has been caught funnelling billions of euros of dodgy cash from Russia and elsewhere to unknown destinations. I will get surprised if any of the Danske Bank’s directors will go to jail, despite, the bank is at the centre of possibly the world’s biggest money-laundering scandal.

The revelations about dubious flows of funds through its Estonian branch. The affair has its roots in 2007 when Danske took over Finland’s Sampo Bank, including its branch in the Estonian capital, Tallinn.

During the eight years from then until 2015, an astonishing €200bn of non-resident money – mostly from Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova and other ex-Soviet states – flowed through the branch, according to a report commissioned by the bank from law firm Bruun & Hjejle.
t investigators have so far examined 6,200 of the 15,000 non-resident accounts opened during the period, and say the “vast majority” of them are suspicious.

They did. Almost as soon as Danske acquired its Estonian outpost, Estonia’s financial regulator criticised the Danish bank for underestimating compliance risk and having problems with know-your-customers rules.

Russia’s central bank warned Danske that the branch was being used for nefarious transactions – either tax evasion or money laundering to the tune of billions of roubles a month. This warning was ignored.

In 2008 Danske cancelled plans to move its Baltic subsidiaries onto the bank’s main IT platform, meaning – incredibly – that the Tallinn branch did not deploy the same anti-laundering checks as the head office in Copenhagen.

Yes. The fact that no-one took action might be explained by the fact that the Estonian branch was generating 11% of Danske’s total profits while accounting for 0.5% of the bank’s assets (and the fact that non-residents accounted for up to 99% of the Estonian profits).
The non-resident business continued to flourish even after JP Morgan withdrew as Danske Bank Estonia’s correspondent bank for dollars in 2013, concerned it was being used to channel dodgy funds.

It was only in 2014 that Danske’s senior management began to wind down the business, after a whistleblower – who has been named by the Danish press as Howard Wilkinson, the British former head of Danske’s trading business in the Baltics – alerted them to the use of the branch for alleged money laundering by a London-registered limited liability partnership (LLP).

What exactly is money laundering?
It’s a generic term that describes any process by which criminals can disguise, move or spend their ill-gotten gains by transforming “dirty” money into legitimate “clean” assets. Estimates from the likes of the UN and the IMF suggest the amount of money laundered each year is in the region of 3%-5% of global GDP.

A very basic form of money laundering is simply to take a bagful of cash to another jurisdiction and deposit it in a bank. A step up from that might be for a mafia-type organised crime gang to run a “legitimate” cash-intensive business (a car-wash, a casino, a restaurant, say) as a front through which it can channel and launder cash. More sophisticated laundering uses financial products for the same ends.

Danske Bank isn’t the only bank to be caught out. Last month the Dutch bank ING was fined €775m over a laundering scandal. Last year Deutsche Bank paid a total of $630m to US and UK regulators over “mirror trades” through its Moscow branch, which was allegedly used to launder $10bn out of Russia. Analysts at Jyske Bank have predicted a global fine of as much as $8bn for Danske if wrongdoing is proven, says the FT.

Since the financial crisis, banks have paid more than $300bn in fines for wrongdoing, but Oliver Bullough, whose recent book Moneyland explores how kleptocrats have exploited Western financial and legal systems, thinks the problem may be the tip of an iceberg, he tells the FT. “We only know about Danske because Wilkinson stuck his head above the parapet, but how many other banks in the Baltics were doing exactly the same thing?”

How is London involved?
Many of the entities sending money through Estonia were shell companies registered in the UK or its overseas territories, and the National Crime Agency has opened an initial investigation into potential criminal wrongdoing.
The now-dissolved company, whose ultimate owners were alleged to be the family of Vladimir Putin, was Lantana Trade LLP, whose registered address (the FT reported last week) was in the UK. But it was just one of perhaps thousands of similar vehicles.
According to Danske’s report into the affair, UK entities such as LLPs and SLPs (Scottish limited partnerships) made up the second biggest proportion of Danske Estonia’s non-resident customers – second only to those based in Russia.

Why are they so popular?
The fact that Britain is home to a major global financial centre means it is always going to attract people wanting to launder cash. But inevitably the Danske scandal has intensified questions over the ease with which LLPs and SLPs can be misused, providing anonymous shell companies with a UK wrapper by registering through an official formation agent for as little as £50.
UK regulators have tried to clamp down on their misuse – for example, by forcing all companies, including LLPs, to divulge who their “person of significant control” is. The UK government is now considering further measures, such as requiring LLPs to have a principal place of business in the UK, while campaigners are urging far greater control and scrutiny of the agents who form the companies.
So far, says Caroline Binham in the FT, “there has only been one prosecution of a person for filing false information to Companies House. It turned out he was a campaigner showing how easy it was”.

Danske Bank win the 2018 Corrupt Actor of the Year Award

“A €230 billion money laundering scandal put Danske Bank ahead of a record 22 other contenders to win the 2018 Corrupt Actor of the Year award from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

For the past seven years, the non-profit media organization has spotlighted the individual or institution that has done the most over the previous 12 months to advance organized criminal activity and corruption in the world.

“Danske Bank is a worthy recipient of this prize. It highlights the role of the criminal services industry in enabling international corruption and crime,” said OCCRP co-founder and editor Drew Sullivan. The term “criminal services” refers to the banks, law firms, registration agents, accountants, and others who help criminals and corrupt officials hide their assets and legitimize their operations.

“In the past 20 years, they’ve globalized organized crime and autocracy and helped everyone from Mexican drug cartels to Russian President Vladimir Putin to terrorists, autocrats, and almost every global threat,” he said. Sullivan was one of nine judges who made the final selection. Nominations were submitted by journalists and the public.”Read article !!!