Ian learnt before his trial that Guy Carpenter Reinsurance had engaged the services of their sister company KROLL, whom had put Ian Puddick, a plumber under surveillance.
The Kroll codename was Operation Marten, which involved over 12 agents, the objective was to obtain commercial and lifestyle information on Ian Puddick. Guy Carpenter made an application to the High Court in Secret (an ex parte application) for Kroll to have all Ian Puddick’s personal and business bank accounts and telephone records, revealing content of text messages.
Why would two of the world’s largest companies spent so much time and money on such an extensive operation (on a plumber) ?
Ian Puddick had contacted customers of Guy Carpenter and informed them that a board member had been making fraudulent expense claims to hide an affair he was having with Ians wife, a very embarrassing claim for the individual and also for Guy Carpenter Limited. The board member in the first instance denied the affair and fiddling his expenses.
Both Guy Carpenter & the individual were both regulated by the FSA in the UK and more importantly in the US by the SEC. A new Federal Law to regulate financial companies was created in the US after the collapse of ENRON due to internal corruption and fraud. The law is known as (SOX) Sarbanes Oxley, and any Manager and/or Director of a company that makes false accounting entries which includes company expense claims is in breach of that law. The law states it is fraud*
*Any intentional act or omission intended to deceive others wherein the organisation suffers a loss, in this instance the individual had been naming clients on his expense forms instead of his secret lover.
The High Court order was granted in secret and Kroll obtained Ian Puddicks personal and business bank accounts. An internal Kroll email from Managing Director Benedict Hamilton to Guy Carpenter says, ‘Ian Puddick has to understand that he stands to lose something here’.
This was all happening in secret unbeknown to Ian, a complete violation of all of Ian’s Human Rights. Why were Kroll employed, Sussex Police had been asked to investigate the matter but declined stating the matter was a civil matter and that the board member would be unlikely to turn up in court.
Benedict Hamilton MD, Kroll sent an email to Guy Carpenter re the board member says, ‘I spoke to xxx xxx and reminded him to stress to Sussex Police when he speaks to them that he experiencing alarm and distress, or they will be reluctant to pursue the matter’. This is called coaching a witness which is forbidden.
Why would a High Court Judge grant an American private company such an order to obtain all private information on a citizen ??
The application to the High Court Order stated it was required for a civil action because Guy Carpenter clients had been threatened. The application says some 23 times that Guy Carpenter clients had been threatened with physical violence*.
*internal Kroll emails state that Ian Puddick was not threatening and more importantly City of London Police under oath told the court that they had found no evidence (& they are no friends of Ian) of any threatening behaviour by Ian Puddick
Upon receiving the High Court Order, Kroll ordered City of London Police to interview Ian’s wife Leena. Leena was interviewed by City of London Police*, Leena was robustly questioned for over 1 hour and accused of committing various criminal acts. The officer then accused Leena of making up the story of an affair and suggested that Ian had invented the story out of jealously, the officer Dan Valour said that Ian a plumber must have been very jealous of the board member city status and millionaire lifestyle.
Leena confirmed the affair, but the officer did not believe her.
*Leena was not cautioned, she was not allowed to have solicitor, and she was denied all of her rights by city of London Police. Leena contacted City of London Police and was told that this interview did not happen; there was no record of this incident and the officer had no recollection or notes concerning the interview. Clearly a breach of Leena’s Human Rights
Guy Carpenter were clearly concerned about their reputation and share price. Before Ian’s trial Ian’s home was broken into and all his court defence documents were stolen. The Met police confirmed it was a professional job, not a local burglar. Who would gain from sight of Ian’s court documents asked the Met Police
Prior to Ian Puddicks trial Guy Carpenter were forced by unhappy clients to investigate the board members conduct. The company found when they examined internal expense documents that board member had made fraudulent expense claims. A former disciplinary process was started, however the board member then resigned after 34 years employment.
Interestingly, in court under oath City of London Police Counter Terrorism Directorate Detective Sarah Mayo said in defence of the former board member that she had fully investigated Ian Puddicks claim and found it to be untrue, she claimed to had attended the offices of Guy Carpenter and found no evidence of any misconduct by the former board member of Guy Carpenter.
Ians Barrister Michael Wolkind QC successfully obtained a letter from Guy Carpenters lawyers Herbert Smith, whom confirmed that Ian Puddicks claim was true.
Why would City of London Police officers, Detective Chief Inspector Steve Chandler and Detective Superintendent Jeffrey Davies authorise Operation Bohan 1 and Operation Bohan 2 costing the tax payer millions ??
Ian Puddick has instructed Janes Solicitors of Pall Mall to commence a civil case against City of London Police