Pandora's Box - Pandora’s Box – What happens when you expose massive fraud?
The Case of Richard Chang Part 1
Does the New World Order actually exist? – You bet it does!!
Did you ever link the Masonic Lodge with this massive empire? – You should have!!
Ever wondered how this evil satanic empire obtains its money? – Its easy believe me!!
As Gordon and I continue to expose the organization that intentionally collapsed the world economy we do, from time to time, turn up the heat and why not because devils really do like to keep warm don’t they?
Many times when you are uncovering massive corporate fraud you expose yourself sometime to ridicule and at other times to danger….such could have been the case with Richard Chang who may have exposed the wheeling and dealing within the original Abbey National Bank Empire situated at Number 2 Triton Square, Euston, London………that company was eventually taken over by Santander, a Spanish company.
One has to understand that in order for the New World Order to survive it needs to syphon off huge sums of money by creating virtual or shell companies. Places like Lonrho Plc situated on the 2nd Floor, 25 Berkeley Square, London have a boiler room full of fraudulent activities and believe me they do it with such ease.
David Lenigas Lonrho
Can you imagine for instance someone getting a spade, digging a small hole in the ground, pop up a large tin shed, surround it with a security fence, erect a nice new sign to show this huge open pit copper mine or whatever and then finally place a couple of rough looking armed security guards and you have the making of a virtual company.
Then you create a nice new video showing your activity around the world with a couple of new trucks, a drill rig and lots of false out of date data and maps and you are ready to start your world tour to raise money for the project or phase.
You then invite lots of investors and a few little old ladies, wine and dine them and then show them your elaborate presentation before they finally succumb to your charm and hand over their hard earned money………..what they do not know is that from that moment their money has gone forever……..you then take the $6 billion or whatever and distribute it around the many directors (they have no employees) of your fake company who then distribute it via their other fake outlets so that its well and truly hidden.
Finally over the next 5 years you have to play your investors along and tell them things are looking good and you are carrying out exploration etc………then during year 2 you give them another update that things are looking good for production………then in year 3 you have a few setbacks such has torrential rain in the Congo or maybe a bit of the ongoing conflict has caused you a few setbacks……then in year 4 its getting worse and the exploration findings are not showing the yield you were expecting and by year 5….sorry folks the political situation and the current price of copper has caused us to pull out of the project as its no longer viable and the company closes down…….what you don’t know is that they re start the entire exercise all over again and rip another batch of investors off.
Before trying to understand how massive corporate fraud operates and how they are connected to the banks and many political figures we have to watch the following video which will act as a template for you all to better understand what is going on in all our respective countries:
OK with that out the way lets just get back to the main purpose of this story which is to reveal the fate of one such possible whistleblower, who just may have come across the fact that his company, Abbey National Bank, were carrying out massive fraud.
Maybe Richard Chang didn’t realize that because he was conscientious and because he was good at his job he just may have uncovered something that would eventually lead to his tragic death.
So who was Richard Chang:
Richard Chang was born on 8th December 1956 in Kampala , Uganda and grew up in England from the age of 7 years. He was married and was the father of two young children. He was a high achiever with a Degree in Polymer Science from Manchester University and an MBA from London University . He was well spoken, articulate and his first language was English.
Richard Chang worked at the Abbey National Bank PLC (Head Office)(“Abbey”) based at Triton Square , Euston, London . His role was that of a senior IT Risk Analyst and he commenced working in this specialty from 2002 onwards. He was working on a system known as the BASEL II corporate banking governance project. (Very concisely, BASEL II is the successor to BASEL I, originally set up by Peter Cooke, a Director of the Bank of England to enable central banks to assess lending and liability portfolios for the commercial banks it supervised. The system expanded to be applied by other central banks, internationally). Richard and his line manager, Vincent Santeng, were the only personnel at Abbey working on this project.
Richard gave his notice of resignation from Abbey on 2nd July 2007. This was so that he would begin work at the Royal Bank of Scotland on 2nd August 2004. However, on the 13th July 2004 shortly following a two hour interrogation by two operatives of Kroll Associates (“Kroll”), a private corporate intelligence and investigations’ company, Richard was found dead at almost 13.45pm on the ground floor atrium. It is said that he tragically fell from the fifth floor balcony inside the atrium of Abbey’s head office. In the interrogation, he was accused of writing and sending malicious anonymous documents to the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) and senior directors of Abbey. The anonymous documents are said to have contained allegations of fraudulent malpractice at Abbey by senior directors. Ex-employees who worked closely with Richard at Abbey are of the opinion that the circumstances of his death are highly suspicious.
What I find an amazing coincidence is the fact that if he had uncovered fraud he was just about to join another company that was also rife with fraud at the time, the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Family and friends of Richard are convinced that this certainly was not a case of suicide and that his life ended after his cross examination by Kroll under very suspicious circumstances.
Before continuing with this story lets just give another example of one other location like Lonrho’s who also specialises in massive corporate fraud and who also operates a substantial boiler room of virtual/shell companies……the company is Arlington Associates and they are situated at 25 Arlington Street which is attached to the Ritz Hotel in London…..how convenient don’t you think?.......when you are ripping off the system its nice to pop in next door and enjoy the luxuries of life…….one should ask Tony Blair how good life can be as he his a regular participant in this world of deceit.
What I find ironic about this location is the fact that once some men dressed in a trilby, trench coats and very dark sunglasses carried out a raid there and yet this empire of massive fraud still continues doing what it does best……..taking your money…..no doubt it’s ring leader ex Ambassador Frances D Cook is still sleeping on a mattress of green back’s and also pushing over the pond the weapons that are manufactured by her other company ATK.
Maybe next time there is a march in London the crowds may just find this out of the way location……..they came close on the last rally when they targeted the Ritz…..in actual fact a group actually headed down the street to the left (Arlington Street) but obviously didn’t notice this boiler room that helped cause our economic decline…..oh well better luck next time hey?
Frances D Cook
Above you will see the directors of this illustrious company some of whom are ex SAS members, which appears to be a benchmark in qualifying for such a high status…..at the end of the day when you are ripping off the system you also need to protect your interests in whatever way required……..the same goes for Kroll Associates, a private corporate intelligence and investigation company to whom poor Richard Chang is alleged to have fallen victim too.
Now back to the Richard Chang story:
It is very clear that Richard, in his position as Senior IT Risk Analyst, would have been privy to some extremely sensitive information regarding the affairs of the Abbey National Bank. Richard, being a person with a pretty good IQ, would probably have also come across some irregularities within the bank, especially the possibility of fraud at director level and accordingly if this was the case would have been considered a high risk person by some members of the board. The very fact that he could well have uncovered something significant and that he was soon to leave for another job could have led to his death……what Richard didn’t understand was that he was about to join a much larger organization, The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which also appeared rife with fraud at director level. It could have even been possible that there was some collusion between Abbey & the RBS regarding Richard Chang as it is normal for banks to have a cross check system on security issues etc and could have profiled him.
The main issue here is why did Richard suddenly become a target for the bank whilst he was serving his notice, why was his interrogation so aggressive and why would he have committed suicide when he had so much to live for……….from my perspective I find the basics of the case deeply suspicious and certainly there is a case to answer…..so lets now look at the events on that day.
The Abbey National Bank HQ in London is a substantial building of multi levels with an internal atrium. The picture below show the building after it was taken over by Santander.
Old Abbey National Building (Scene of the crime) 2 Triton Square , Euston, London
The day started normally for Richard and he had even made arrangement to meet up with family members later on in the day but what he didn’t realize on the day that they had hood winked him into attending a routine meeting that was not a meeting at all but a very privately arranged interrogation of Richard by Kroll Security. No one was allowed to sit in with him during this time. This in itself his totally out of order because Richard was a member of the union and it is normal for a union rep to be present. On could also clearly see that this was a breach of Human Rights and whatever the final verdict Abbey certainly has a case to answer.
The Guardian put Richards situation into perspective when they said:
Richard Chang didn't know he was being watched. He didn't know his employer had hired investigators to access employees' PCs and take fingerprints from glass water bottles around the office. He didn't know there were linguistics experts dissecting the grammar in every memo, email and letter. He didn't know he was on a list of 600 "suspects". And he didn't know that when he was called to what he thought was a routine Tuesday meeting he would spend the next two and a half hours being interviewed.
It is clear that this interview actually turned into a high pressure interrogation which I was about to find out when I listened to the taped transcript (which incidentally had been doctored). However I will get back to the interrogation later and now discuss some of the key players in this massive cover-up and also list the directors of the Abbey National Bank.
You will all find as we dig deeper into this tragic case at Abbey that some of the directors certainly were and still are implicated in massive fraud so let’s just divert our thoughts into what was possibly going on at number two Triton Square, Euston.
The director of Abbey was Luqman Arnold and during his time in office was believed to be asset stripping the accounts at Abbey as were other directors. It was when the toxic assets increased that Arnold decided to sell the Abbey to Santander, a Spanish company……what was rather strange was the fact that Arnold stayed on after the Santander takeover and managed to secure himself a position as a consultant…….I guess one could possible believe that its better to know the devil you know than the devil you don’t!!
The banking sector and the Financial Times sometimes referred to him as “Lucky” or the Saviour but believe me there was no luck for those that fell under his spell or those that lost money whilst on his watch.
One statement referred to him as follows: Luqman Arnold makes an unlikely saviour of Britain's high street banks. Five years ago it was Abbey. Now he hopes to turn his healing hands to the crippled Northern Rock…etc
Arnolds CV reads as follows:
First National Bank in Dallas 1972-76,
Manufacturers Hanover Corporation 1976-82
Head of Investment Banking origination Credi Suesse First Boston 1982-92
Research Sabbatical 1992-93
Member Exec Committee and Bd Banque Paribas 1993-96
Group Exec Bd and President UBS AG 1996-2001
Chief Exec Abbey National plc 2002-2004
Senior Advisor to Chairman Grupo Santander 2004-06
Chairman Olivant Advisers Ltd 2006 –
Chairman Design Museum 2005-
One can clearly see that whichever way you turn the banks are up to their neck in corporate fraud and even offer unsecured loans to non existent oil and mining projects that then becomes a toxic debt…….oh well what difference does it make they just ask the government to bail them out and pass it on to the tax payer.
I can assure you that when I write the next article it will open up an extremely large hornet’s nest of fraud and corruption but in the meantime lets again get back to Richard’s tragic story.
There is no doubt whatsoever that in his position as a Senior IT Risk Analyst with the Abbey he would have uncovered something that would lead to his demise and it would be clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that the fraudulent senior staff members of the Abbey would have arranged for his removal.
Lets now look Richards death in more detail with the following details that were sent to me by a member of the family:
Abbey management confirmed that on 13th July 2004, Richard was taken to a ground floor meeting room, where he was secretly taped by Kroll. There is in existence a copy of the recording and transcript of the interrogation which gives evidence that Richard was bullied, heckled and victimized during the session by the two operatives, Howard Jones (a former Metropolitan Police Detective Chief Superintendent and Peter Pender-Cudlip, a Solicitor and Kroll Director) of Kroll. At the Coroner’s Inquest (18th -20th July 2005), Richard’s line manager who was also interrogated by Kroll, following after Richard’s interrogation, confirmed that the recording of his interrogation had been edited. The Chang Family has strong reason to believe that the recording of Richard’s interrogation has also been heavily edited. Howard Jones admitted in a witness statement to the Inquest that he had tampered with the original recording by downloading it from his MP3 player onto the hard drive of his computer. He made a CD copy of the digital recording of the interrogation which he handed to the Metropolitan Police on the 29th July 2004. That is, 15 days after Richard had died. The Metropolitan Police took another week to transfer it on to audio tape.
Chang family support group
So what happened and who was responsible for initiating the investigation and interrogation?
On 13th July 2004, Richard was deceived (by his own department manager) into attending a BASEL II project meeting on his own which subsequently turned into a two and a half hour interrogation by Kroll Associates, conducted by Howard Jones, an ex-Detective Chief Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police and Peter Pender-Cudlip, a city lawyer. The interrogation was authorized by Abbey Management Directors. It was instigated by Luqman Arnold, CEO. Karen Fortunato, Company Secretary, Stephen Hester, Priscilla Vacassin, Human Resources director and Richard Carr, Interim Human Resources Director, Nathan Bostock, Head of Treasury, Nigel Walder (Button Wood Tree Consultancy-working within Abbey), Mark Jackson, IT manager, John Hasson, Ryan Brosnahan were involved in the investigation.
What was unethical (and suspicious) about the investigation conducted by Abbey’s Management?
Prior to the interrogation on 13th July 2004, Abbey’s Management, embarked on an investigation to determine who wrote the anonymous documents. The directors allege during the investigation they identified 40 possible suspects. In the RR65 race questionnaire, it was admitted that, out of the 40 suspects, Richard and his line manager (Nigerian origin) were the only non-whites. They allegedly devised a matrix system to identify suspects. The matrix has not been disclosed to the family notwithstanding albeit repeated requests to Abbey and the Metropolitan Police. Nathan Bostock decided very early on before the main investigation had begun that Richard Chang (Chinese) and his immediate line manager Vincent Santeng (Black) were co-authors of the anonymous documents i.e. pre-selection cannot be ruled out. Abbey allege that finger prints were secretly taken from drinking glasses using white gloves, from envelopes containing the anonymous documents as well as Richard’s personnel files. Richard Carr (Human Resources director) and Mark Jackson (Richard and Vincent’s IT manager) were allegedly instructed to take samples of Richard’s finger prints (using white gloves) without his consent ostensibly from drinking glasses after an appraisal meeting. Evidence shows that the results of the fingerprinting were inconclusive. When fingerprinting is used to identify an individual it is vital that a high degree of skill is exercised because the potential for error is high. It is important that all factors which would create any bias are eliminated (see Shirley McKie v Strathclyde Police).
The Chang Family has never been shown any evidence which proves Richard wrote the anonymous documents. The Chang Family maintains that Abbey has no evidence at all to prove that Richard wrote the anonymous documents. Richard’s line manager, after taking an employment action against Abbey, was cleared of all wrong-doing in respect of Abbey, who had originally accused both Richard and his line manager of writing the anonymous documents.
Who was responsible for allowing Richard to go in to the interrogation unattended?
The directors of Abbey management authorized the interrogation. Witness statements show that Robin Parkinson, Abbey’s in-house solicitor was consulted by Richard Carr and approved that the interrogations could take place without the presence of a trade union representative – or anyone else. Parkinson allowed Richard to be deceived on the false premise that Richard was a threat to IT security. Vincent Santeng stated at the Coroner’s Inquest that Richard could not have been a threat to IT security. Robin Parkinson’s line manager at the material time was Karen Fortunato. She is the Company Secretary for Abbey. Robin Parkinson commenced employment with Abbey on 5th July 2004 which was just 7 days before Richard died.
Why was this wrong?
An ex- employee of Abbey and a Trade Union representative who worked for Abbey for 16 years was approached by the interim Director of HR, Richard Carr to seek his advice. Richard Carr and Abbey Management in general chose to ignore his advice which was that there should always be a representative in such a meeting and that there was a written protocol that stated this. At a pre-hearing review in July 2006 the ex-Abbey employee said that he believed Richard was ‘ambushed’ and would probably still be alive today if he had been accompanied.
At a pre-hearing tribunal employment case against Abbey in July 2006, the ex-employee of Abbey emphasized that he had advised the Human Resources (“HR”) Director that anyone being interviewed should be accompanied by a member of the trade union. He stated that Richard was a member of the trade union. He re-iterated on more than one occasion that he was concerned that someone would be mistreated by Abbey. He also conferred with his line manager about the HR Director not taking his advice that there should be a trade union representative to accompany Richard Chang. He also mentioned that under the chairmanship of Lord Burns, this ‘new set of directors’ “would do as they please and no matter what information was given, they would not follow.”
Conduct of the Kroll Agents
In the interrogation, the Kroll agents accused Richard in tandem with Vincent Santeng of being the co-authors of the anonymous documents supposedly sent to the FSA and to Abbey, alleging financial corruption, fraud and sexual impropriety by named directors, Luqman Arnold, Nathan Bostock, Nigel Walder and Nick Riley. At the interrogation, Howard Jones made comments to the effect that he was accusing Richard of being one of the authors of the anonymous documents. Abbey believed that there was more than one author and that the first language of the originator(s) was not English. Richard therefore could not have been the author because his first language was English. Howard Jones and Peter Pender-Cudlip, the two Kroll agents, heckled, bullied and intimidated Richard in a degrading and hostile manner.
Howard Jones subjected Richard to continual and aggressive harassment in a futile attempt to get him to admit to writing (or being a significant contributor to) the authorship of the anonymous documents. Richard never admitted (at any time) that he wrote (or contributed to) any of the documents. Richard was put under psychological pressure whilst being detained in the interrogation room for two and a half hours without any intermission and he finally had to insist that they allow him go for a natural break since he was also hungry. The interrogation was racially discriminatory, personally degrading and hostile.
The Chang family previously issued a race questionnaire (“RR65”) to Abbey and Kroll. It is apparent from Abbey’s response that there are racial implications connected with their response i.e. out of the 40 suspects selected only Richard and his line manager were the only non-white. A matrix system (not shown at all to the Chang Family) by Abbey management was used.
What else was illegal and unethical?
Howard Jones secretly recorded the interrogation using a digital device hidden in a brief case without Richard’s consent. Richard’s line manager (on oath) stated at the Coroner’s Inquest that parts of the recording of the interrogation had been edited removing evidence relating to bullying, harassment and race.
Nathan Bostock was one of the named directors in the anonymous documents. Abbey’s internal management alleges that they investigated whether or not there was any substance to the contents of the anonymous documents and (ostensibly) subsequently found that there were none. Immediately following this ‘finding’, Nathan Bostock was assigned to head the investigation into the authorship of the anonymous documents.
The Metropolitan police conducted a flawed investigation
Richard’s line manager, Vincent Santeng, who was also interrogated by Kroll just before Richard died, alerted the police on the day that the circumstances relating to Richard’s death were suspicious. He is reported to have said “They’ve killed him”. The Senior Investigation Officer, Detective Sergeant Martin Sloan, from Holborn Police Station, after talking to Howard Jones (an ex-Detective Chief Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police), Nathan Bostock and Mark Jackson concluded on the next day that the death was a suicide and was not suspicious.
Richard’s sister, Valerie Chang spoke to Sergeant Neil Payne a few days after the death and asked why the police had not removed the digital device from Howard Jones immediately after Richard had died. He said that it was not necessary because Howard Jones was an ex-Detective Chief Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police. The handwritten note addressed to Howard Jones has been forensically tested by the Police. The results were that the signature was inconclusive. There are evidential inconsistencies as to where the note was actually found.
Having worked in association with Intel at NATO HQ and having worked at a Police Operation Centre I can assure you that the comments made by Sgt Neil Payne regarding the digital device held by Howard Jones were not normal police protocol. There was also a fundamental mistake made by The Senior Investigaton Officer, DS Martin Sloan when he had taken and accepted the word of an ex cop (ex DCS of the Metropolitan Police -Howard Jones) and concluded that the death was suicide before a full investigations, forensic sweep of the building and before the full autopsy results were known……this again was a non standard flaw by those involved and certainly should qualify for the case to be re opened.
Regarding the Police Investigation - I have observed gross violations of normal police procedures here, especially when they accepted the word of a non serving member. It is of my opinion that what happened on that day and how the investigation was conducted certainly qualifies for an inquiry by the IPCC.
Regarding Abbey Nation - There is also a clear case against the company in relation to a violation of basic human rights in the way Richard Chang was treated. Senior members of staff at the time should be pulled back in for further investigation on this matter and charged. There is also the case of fraudulent activity taking place at a very high level and in this context the senior members of staff should be investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and charges made if appropriate.
There are many more interesting findings which I will discuss in Part 2 of the Richard Chang Story as well as revealing the possibility of massive fraud which is interconnected to other fraudulent webs that once again just so happen to link in with 22 Arlington Street, London.
One thing I can assure the Chang Family is that Richard’s death will not be in vain…..this man obviously knew too much and now Gordon and I know what that may have been up too……Richard may have been the sacrificial lamb but one thing for sure….the perpetrators who planned and carried out his death will truly regret their actions because we will not only look for justice and bring those responsible to court but we will also shake the very foundation of the other scumbags who continue to rape the corporate and banking sectors of this country.
I believe that after this exposure the police and those involved will themselves look for a scapegoat and offer one of their own to become their sacrificial lamb rather than risk continues media exposure of their fraudulent and corrupt empire………Gordon and I would certainly ask for a focus to be placed on the ex cop Howard Jones who could well turn out to be that lamb!!
What I find incredibly sad is an assessment that was carried out on the system that had been pushed into the Abbey and become one of Richard’s projects. The report stated the following:
A set of capital adequacy standards for international banks drawn up by a committee of G-10 supervisors – is essential if we are to avoid another financial crisis. This paper argues that this conclusion is false: Basel II is not the solution to the crisis, but instead an underlying cause of it. I ask why Basel II’s creators fell so short of their aim of improving the safety of the international banking system…….Basel II failed and its replacement Basel III is also doomed to failure. Richard was working on this failed system and I am sure he was probably aware that this upgrade was also a total waste of money for a company that was struggling to stay afloat, especially that the CEO was intending to sell the company to Santander anyway!!.
Mmmmmm something strange going on here!!.......Must ask Howard Jones more questions!!
Watch this space for more in depth details of Richard’s interrogation, autopsy and strong ties to Temple Church etc as well as how these directors have all moved on to continue the same line of work……you will be very surprised just how well Gordon Bowden has linked the spiders web to the same pile of crooks we have been talking about for a very long time………as you know my site is continuously attacked by the political elite but Gordon and I remain strong and continue to pump the information out.
Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 5/6/2011 www.eyreinternational.worpress.com