England’s case study
England’s case study

England’s case study


This is a summary of a civil case exposing the elephant in the courtroom. How England is being scammed by its pillars of society.




On 11/03/2020, Bank-A applied to repossess one of the properties of a company that created the world’s first AI market. A court hearing was scheduled for 14/04/2020. On 03/04/2020, Bank-A wrote a false statement to mislead the court. But COVID-19 adjourned the hearing and on 09/04/2020, just 6 days later Bank-A wrote to apologise and accept legal service.


During lockdown proof was obtained that 6 weeks before Bank-A applied to the court they were escalating this borrower’s offer to settle their loan to the top of their organization, and looking to uphold their complaint for mis-selling.


AI was then used to find a legal trail of hundreds of thousands of equity charges worth tens of billions registered at HM Land Registry in the name of Bank-B. In 2008, all these charges were transferred to Bank-C, and again in 2010 to a third-party trust. But, without ever owning them, Bank-A fraudulently acquired the charges at HM Land Registry.


On 25/08/2023, a sitting judge in this case said evidence of this has merit. On 21/12/2023, Bank-C wrote confirming all this and that the charge was all paid off in 2010. But when Bank-C realized they gave proof of their fraud, their choice of lies revealed all three trusted high street banks as contributors to the last financial crash.




We have interviewed a whistleblower with more damaging evidence that 10.8 million equity charges have been wrongfully traded by banks abusing civil law this way in the United Kingdom.


Case study press packs


  • A trial skeleton argument that invalidates £14 billion worth of UK charges, including this company’s counterclaim for potentially hundreds of millions. This was sent to Bank-A on 06/06/2023, which resulted in the low court following Bank-A’s request not to follow due process and the High Court having to intervene.


  • Including over one year of delay because of COVID-19, we have documented over four years of this civil case. With court orders and judges’ statements resulting in delays of at least two years and significant extra costs because of court administrative, procedural, and legal mistakes which helped Bank-A and harmed their opponent. This is a step-by-step guide to how banks abuse the court’s trust and exploit the unlawful distribution of equity.


  • This has already helped multiple victims connect for joint claims against Bank-A and Bank-C. Our whistleblower has learned that just one of these banks has set aside £5 billion for payouts.