Halligen - Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception?

The 'Mirror' said yesterday:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Private detective accused of ripping off Madeleine McCann fund wanted in the US over alleged £1.3million fraud

A private detective accused of ripping off the Madeleine McCann fund is also wanted in the US over an alleged £1.3million fraud, it was revealed yesterday.

+++++++++++

Hang on a minute...

Accused - by whom? By the McCanns? By Brian Kennedy? By the press?

Accused - of what? Fraud? Deception? Fraudulent misrepresentation? Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception? - these are criminal offences known to British law, committed at least partly in Britain, against three British people - the McCanns and Brian Kennedy (who appointed Halligen) - against the Trustees of the Find Madeleine Fund, based in Britain and above all in respect of the search for a British girl.

So, some more questions:

1. Which police force if any is investigating Halligen's crimes against the Find Madeleine Fund?

2. Have the McCanns, Brian Kennedy or the Trustees of the Find Madeleine Fund made any statements to the police about Halligen's frauds?

I think we should be told.

Seeing as it was publically donated money that was allegedly ripped off I would think it in the publics interest that we are told.

littlepixie wrote:Seeing as it was publiclly donated money that was allegedly ripped off, I would think it in the public's interest that we are told.

I agree, and that I think very much reinforces the case for a full public enquiry as soon as possible into every aspect of this, er, 'complete mystery'.

Children's pocket money and old peeople's pensions were used to fund Kevin Halligen's high-living and hard-drinking lifestyle.

To think that an old lady on a pension who gave a week's money to the Find Madeleine Fund has seen it spent on half-a-dozen double whiskies for Halligen.

It must never happen again.

It should be looked into, otherwise if it isn't then Mr. Halligen can quite reasonably sue the papers and whoever passed them this story for libel. The papers are saying "accused" so who gave them this story? If you accuse someone then you should have proof to back this up and it should be investigated. Many member of the public donated to the fund, to find Madeleine, and have every right to know what has happened to it.

FOI request to whom?

littlepixie wrote:Seeing as it was publically donated money that was allegedly ripped off I would think it in the publics interest that we are told.

I concur, but told by who? Who should tell us?

The police? or the Home Office or the Press Commission?

If the McCanns were ripped off then they must pursue Halligen or someone should on behalf of the folk who donated to the fund. Perhaps MP Stephen Dorrell could help? he seems very cross about the rip-off:

‘The Conservative MP for the McCann’s constituency of Charnwood, Stephen Dorrell, said: "This man clearly saw a vulnerable family going through a terrible ordeal and the only thing he was focused on was that there were people offering money to help find Madeleine." ‘

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

However, if the McCanns were satisfied customers of Halligen then why all this nonsense about them being ripped-off?

If Halligen substantially fulfilled his contract how can Stephen Dorrell accuse him of exploiting the McCann’s and the public?

The question is, was the Find Madeleine Fund “ripped-off” by Halligen: Yes? No? Maybe?

If the Find Madeleine Fund was not “ripped-off” what did Halligen actually do for the McCanns (and Brian Kennedy) that justified the significant sum paid to him?

Surely Stephen Dorrell would be very surprised to hear that Halligen was actually a real help to the McCanns and refrained from his con-man like ways in order to help this "vunerable family".

Cheshire Cat wrote:If the McCanns were ripped off then they must pursue Halligen or someone should on behalf of the folk who donated to the fund. Perhaps MP Stephen Dorrell could help? he seems very cross about the rip-off:

‘The Conservative MP for the McCann’s constituency of Charnwood, Stephen Dorrell, said: "This man clearly saw a vulnerable family going through a terrible ordeal and the only thing he was focused on was that there were people offering money to help find Madeleine." ‘

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

However, if the McCanns were satisfied customers of Halligen then why all this nonsense about them being ripped-off?

If Halligen substantially fulfilled his contract how can Stephen Dorrell accuse him of exploiting the McCann’s and the public?

The question is, was the Find Madeleine Fund “ripped-off” by Halligen: Yes? No? Maybe?

If the Find Madeleine Fund was not “ripped-off” what did Halligen actually do for the McCanns (and Brian Kennedy) that justified the significant sum paid to him?

Surely Stephen Dorrell would be very surprised to hear that Halligen was actually a real help to the McCanns and refrained from his con-man like ways in order to help this "vunerable family".

Cheshire Cat, might I suggest that the questions you raise highlight ever more clearly the need for a full public enquiry into this whole affair?

At all times we must rememebr that the public were invited - big-time - to look, to get posters, to buy wristbands, and above all to donate, donate and donate. And to donate.

And before something like this ever happens again, we need to examine very fully how the public's extremely generous resposne was spent. So that I think means the relevant people in this whole affair giving evidence, under sub-poenas or witness orders if necessary.

And here's a list of just some of the factual questions that need answers:

1. A full accounting of where every penny of the public's money went.

2. On what date did Brian Kennedy first offer to help the McCanns.

3. Who was involved in the decision to appoint Control Risks Group (note in the very first week after Madeleine was reported missing), what was their role, who paid them, and what did they do for their money?

4. Full particulars of why Metodo 3 was chosen and by whom - including whether any other private investigation agencies were considered.

5. Full details of how much Metodo 3 paid Madeira lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia in respect of his Arade Dam searches (both parties have admitted some payments were made) for Madeleine's body.

6. Full particulars of the written or verbal contract between Metodo 3 and the McCanns/Brian Kennedy/The Find Madeleine Fund

7. Full details of all negotiations with, and payments to Kevin Halligen (how much and when?) and Oakley International, including details of the contract, details about whether - and if so, how - Kennedy and the McCanns supervised and monitored that contract, an explanation of why Kennedy/the McCanns did not follow up any of the information given by the public to the telephone information line (in Virginia).

8. An explanation from the McCanns/Find Madeleine Fund as to why they are not suing Halligen, having been, it seems, 'ripped off'.

I can think of many more questions the public should have answers to from this secretive bunch who have done goodness-knows-what with the public's generous donations...but that's a few to start off with.

Where are you going to get the answers from?

Irish Eyes wrote:Where are you going to get the answers from?

The answers should come from those who know the answers:
* The McCanns
* Brian Kennedy
* Staff of Control Risks Group
* Staff of Metodo 3
* Kevin Halligen
* Marcos Aragao Correia.

The real question is: why haven't they given us these answers already?

Would you like to see these questions answered, Irish Eyes?

The 'Fund' is supposed to be open and transparent, the public donated therefore they should owe the public an answer to the questions posed imo.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Irish Eyes wrote:Where are you going to get the answers from?

The answers should come from those who know the answers:
* The McCanns
* Brian Kennedy
* Staff of Control Risks Group
* Staff of Metodo 3
* Kevin Halligen
* Marcos Aragao Correia.

The real question is: why haven't they given us these answers already?

Would you like to see these questions answered, Irish Eyes?

One suspects that Irish Eyes would prefer that these questions not be answered.

Perhaps the Serious Fraud Office should be asking these questions?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Irish Eyes wrote:Where are you going to get the answers from?

The answers should come from those who know the answers:
* The McCanns
* Brian Kennedy
* Staff of Control Risks Group
* Staff of Metodo 3
* Kevin Halligen
* Marcos Aragao Correia.

The real question is: why haven't they given us these answers already?

Would you like to see these questions answered, Irish Eyes?

Yes I would.

But i don't think you'll get the answers from the McCann's, Kennedy, Control Risks Group, Metodo3, Halligen, Corriea...so I think your wasting your time.

A little girl has disappeared, we all need to keep trying to ask questions and get answers, - until we do get the truth.

Irish Eyes wrote:But I don't think you'll get the answers from the McCanns, Kennedy, Control Risks Group, Metodo 3, Halligen, Correia...so I think your wasting your time.

Hmmm, just as the Portuguese Police were wasting their time when they

* asked Dr Kate McCann 48 questions and

* asked the 'Tapas 9' to attend a reconstruction.

Sandra Felgueira of Portuguese TV didn't get much change out of Dr Gerald McCann when she asked about why there was the scent of a corpse all over their apartment.

'Ask the dogs, Sandra', he sneered.

When Dr David Payne was asked some questions about the holiday by a Portuguese reporter, he clammed up and said: "This is our matter only. We have a pact".

When journalists have pressed for answers about what all the incompetent private tecs are up to, the stock answer is: "We cannot say anything for operational reasons".

The Portuguese police weren't able to see the McCanns' credit card records nor Madeleine's medical records.

No holiday photos of Madeleine were availabe until after Dr Gerald McCann went home, with his camera, three weeks after Madeleine was reported missing.

Records of text messages were deleted from the McCanns' mobile 'phones.

Robert Murat told 17 lies about what he was doing from 1 to 4 May in Portugal. He couldn't explain why there was encryption on his computer. His mate Sergei Malinka wiped his hard drive before the police could get to it.

What an atmosphere of secrecy hangs like a damp, dirty London smog around this case.

No wonder we don't get answers.

"A private detective accused of ripping off the Madeleine McCann fund is also wanted in the US over an alleged £1.3million fraud, it was revealed yesterday."

Accused by who? Had they obtained verification/confirmation that the mccanns had indeed accused Halligen or filed charges against Halligen?

If not, the press inaccurate reportage is misleading the public, and they should be taken to book.
Maybe complaints should reach the Press Commission over their diabolical reportage. They should not be allowed to print rubbish without evidence of fact to support their statements.

How serious does the situation with the Mc Fraud have to get before it is time to call in the SFO?

Can I report a fraud or corruption directly to the SFO?

Yes, but we are a relatively small and highly specialised organisation that investigates and prosecutes only a small number of very serious and complex cases.

You will need to ask yourself the following questions:

· Does the value of the alleged fraud exceed £1 million?

· Is there a significant international dimension?

· Is the case likely to be of widespread public concern?

· Does the case require highly specialised knowledge, e.g. of financial markets?

· Is there a need to use the SFO's special powers, such as Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act?

Serious or Complex: what do we look for?

Seriousness

Whether the case involves or is linked to organised crime
Whether the fraud will impact on the integrity of the financial market
Whether there is a wider group than shareholders or creditors who have lost money as a result of the alleged fraud
Whether the fraudsters have targeted financial institutions and government (local or central) or other public serving authorities

Complexity

Whether the case involves multiple countries
Whether the evidence to be obtained during the course of the investigation will be found in multiple locations (within the UK or in other countries)
Whether the case involves multiple and complex financial transactions - e.g. involving many companies, accounts, Trusts and countries
Whether the investigation will need to involve a large accountancy analysis

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Irish Eyes wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Irish Eyes wrote:Where are you going to get the answers from?

The answers should come from those who know the answers:
* The McCanns
* Brian Kennedy
* Staff of Control Risks Group
* Staff of Metodo 3
* Kevin Halligen
* Marcos Aragao Correia.

The real question is: why haven't they given us these answers already?

Would you like to see these questions answered, Irish Eyes?

Yes I would.

But i don't think you'll get the answers from the McCann's, Kennedy, Control Risks Group, Metodo3, Halligen, Corriea...so I think your wasting your time.

@ Irish Eyes

Do you not think that the police should have been asking these questions on behalf of Tony Bennett and all the other people who are interested in finding out what really happened to Madeleine McCann?

Hundreds, if not thousands of people have been doing the work that the police should already have done in this case. Would it be too much to ask that they at least take on board the evidence that we have found, and use the results to approach all of the above mentioned individuals and groups to demand answers?

I rang the SFO ages ago as I believe did others, they didnt want to know and told me to ring Crimestoppers - who also were not interested in the least!

Cherry wrote:I rang the SFO ages ago as I believe did others, they didnt want to know and told me to ring Crimestoppers - who also were not interested in the least!

I think I remember that.

As time passes by we continue to learn more about the fund and its purpose.

Many more questions arise.

At least the SFO didn't refer you to the McCann's own helpline!

I think the Daily Mail have been indirectly asking questions about the purpose of the fund by querying the effectiveness of the people hired by BK and GM.

Hope we have further thought provoking articles in the future.

Perhaps the New York times should investigate the case (they dared to investigate the News Of The World phone tapping including the extent of Andy Coulsons involvement).

No authority seems to want to know about their fund fraud.