Thursday, 14 June 2018

PIRC'S MR ILYA ZHAROV PERSISTS IN DISHONESTY AND CROOKEDNESS IN SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

15 June 2018



Mr Ilya Zharov

Head of Reviews & Policy

The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton ML3 0QA



Dear Mr Zharov,

COMPLAINT


I refer to your letter and attachment dated 13 June 2018.


As revealed by new evidence disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016 and by the COPFS on 6 April 2017, since August 1993 police officers, Enterprise Ayrshire employees, Scottish Enterprise employees and COPFS employees have acted dishonestly in concert in this case, with several individuals conspiring to pervert the course of justice:


(a) by failing to carry out an adequate, effective, independent and impartial investigation into my allegations of serious financial irregularities,


(b) by failing to interview witnesses, in particular named individuals, including Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell, seen in documentary evidence to have been involved in manipulating and falsifying accounts in Enterprise Ayrshire and taking control of £187,919 of public money, thereby effectively stealing it, including Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell,   


(c) by failing to elicit a plausible explanation for £187,000 of public money being transferred out of Enterprise Ayrshire’s bank account and into the personal bank account of the person who had instructed the fraudulent acts and omissions in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey,


(d) by failing to elicit a plausible explanation for a further £919 of interest on the stolen cash being deposited into that same employee’s personal bank account instead of to an Enterprise Ayrshire bank account,


(e) by failing to elicit a plausible explanation for omitting to enter into the financial accounts of Enterprise Ayrshire the receipt of £187,069 on 25 June 1993, 


(f) by failing to question Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell about my allegations of more junior employees in Enterprise Ayrshire having been incited by them to enter into a conspiracy to commit crimes, namely financial fraud and theft


(g) by failing to question Mr Gary Tracey about the evidence noted in the Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 recording his instruction to staff in the cash section of Enterprise Ayrshire not to enter into the financial ledger £187,069 that had been received from the European Regional Development Fund on 25 June 1993, which corroborated my allegation of more junior workers, including myself, having been incited to enter into the conspiracy 


(h) by falsely pretending that I was the only witness to the financial irregularities and that there was no corroboration of any of my allegations,


(i) by concealing material evidence,


(j) by repeatedly communicating false information, knowingly, amounting to further instances of fraud.



I have copies of the new evidence that I obtained from Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016 and from the COPFS on 6 April 2017, proving the concerted actions listed above.


As well as being responsible for his or her own acts and omissions each participant in a conspiracy is responsible for the acts and omissions of all the other participants.


COPFS employees have consistently acted in concert with police officers, Enterprise Ayrshire employees and Scottish Enterprise employees to pervert the course of justice by concealing material evidence and repeatedly communicating false information about this case, knowingly, amounting to additional instances of fraud.


In particular, COPFS employees, police officers, Enterprise Ayrshire employees and Scottish Enterprise employees have repeatedly stated falsely that a thorough investigation into my allegations of financial irregularities was carried out in 1993 and thereafter in several reviews, that I was the only witness to the fraud, and that there was no corroboration of any of my allegations. 


The falsehoods communicated by COPFS employees, police officers, Enterprise Ayrshire employees and Scottish Enterprise employees that were exposed by the new evidence arising on 7 July 2016 and 6 April 2017 are amply detailed in my previous correspondence and supporting documentary evidence.

The SPA and the PIRC have done absolutely nothing to ensure effective police performance in this case.


Your reference to my complaint against ACC Nicolson as ‘trivial’ indicates an appearance of bias against me


That complaint arose from ACC Nicolson’s neglect of duty and subsequent communication of a pack of lies to cover that up that neglect of duty in respect of the investigation of the alleged falsification of accounts and the theft of £187,919 of UK taxpayers’ cash from Enterprise Ayrshire in 1993.


The evidence that you casually brush aside includes a bank statement in the name of one of my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire personally showing the deposits of the exact amounts missing from the company’s financial accounts and bank accounts. Do you have a plausible explanation?


Is the fraud and theft of £187,919 of UK taxpayers’ cash really too trivial for you to spend public money investigating?


The police officers who abjectly failed to investigate these significant financial irregularities were indeed corrupt. Your view that such investigatory failures were not corrupt is easily shown to be nonsense in the light of the evidence I submitted.


Would you pocket a substantial amount of PIRC cash in a bank account in your own name while instructing more junior employees to falsify the PIRC’s financial accounts accordingly and expect the police to brush that aside because there is nothing wrong in your view?


I believe that the general public will recognise your view as fundamentally crooked.


Your reference to my complaint about such misconduct by ACC Nicolson as ‘trivial’ is in reality dishonest and disgraceful. Your misconduct can reasonably be suspected as designed to cover up the PIRC’s own former dishonesty in falsely communicating, knowingly, that I had submitted 82 police complaints, and in recommending unjustifiably that the police ignore me.


I have published this letter on my blog which has attracted about 50,000 views to date. Your misconduct and failures will be known to the public in more detail in due course.


In the first instance I want to raise a formal complaint against you for outrageous dishonesty and unprofessional conduct.


Yours sincerely,

Eddie Cairns

Saturday, 24 March 2018

CONCERNS ABOUT BLATANT DISHONESTY BY MR PAUL LEWIS, THE INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

07501 346 490

24 March 2018

 

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

 

I refer to your email dated 22 March 2018.

This letter is based upon the following statement in your email, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

If you consider that your request for your personal data has not been handled appropriately, please get back in touch with us outlining your concerns.  

I have reproduced your email below, reproduced in italics for convenience, with my concerns detailed in footnotes:

To


22 Mar at 10:39 AM


 

Further to your letter of 11 February 2018, requesting a review of our decision notified to you on 9 February 2018, I confirm that a further search of our files was undertaken and, other than the correspondence released to you with our response, we hold no further correspondence within scope of your request. [1]  Given the passage of time, it is possible that some earlier correspondence with you has been destroyed in line with SE’s retention policy.  [2]

 

However, it is evident from the letter that you subsequently sent to us from Ray MacFarlane (14 Oct 1994) that your complaint was investigated and dealt with at that time and the matter considered to be closed. [3]  Furthermore, the matter was also investigated by other authorities, such as Audit Scotland  [4], and Police Scotland. [5] 

 

Your correspondence about this matter has spanned many years [6] and you have previously been advised that Scottish Enterprise will not continue to enter into communication with you in relation to your complaint [7]  which has clearly been dealt with. [8] Therefore, I do not consider that there is any merit in expending resources into further reviewing your complaint. [9]

 

Your Rights under DPA

 

If you consider that your request for your personal data has not been handled appropriately, please get back in touch with us outlining your concerns. [10]  

 

If you are still not satisfied you can contact the Information Commissioner who is responsible for administering the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the UK.    The contact details are below:

 

Customer Contact
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF
casework@ico.org.uk
Tel:  0303 123 1113

 

Or the Scottish Regional Office:

Information Commissioner's Office
45 Melville Street
Edinburgh
EH3 7HL
Tel: 0303 123 1115
Email: 
scotland@ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely

Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

 

Separately, if you persist in misrepresenting the facts I may submit a formal complaint against you personally for dishonesty.

 

Yours sincerely,

Eddie Cairns 



[1]     The following important points, reproduced here in italics for convenience, were contained in my letter to you dated 12 February 2018:
 
With regard to my subject access request dated 6 February 2018, I submitted information and evidence to Scottish Enterprise in respect of alleged new evidence of financial irregularities arising since the completion of the last review of this case by Police Scotland on 31 May 2016 as detailed below.
 
The subject access disclosures requested on 6 February 2018 will include these documents, even although they were sent to Scottish Enterprise by me, and any related documents held by Scottish Enterprise.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by failing to disclose any of these documents.
 
 
[2]     Firstly, I provided evidence to you on 11 February 2018 that Scottish Enterprise had decided not to destroy any documents in this case, as notified to the Information Commissioner by Ms Karen Hannah on 9 January 2017 and recorded by the Information Commissioner in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
She explained that the history of the issue meant that SE could not dispose of the records as it needed to be able to handle any further complaints or communications about matters involving Mr Cairns – which has a long history. We agreed that the ongoing persistence of Mr Cairns demonstrates why the correspondence still needs to be held and there is therefore no reason to delete the information.
Secondly, Scottish Enterprise sent copies of documents dating from 17 August 1993 in this case to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 and disclosed some of those documents to me on 7 July 2016.
 
You have unreasonably and unlawfully disregarded all this evidence by suggesting that important documents may already have been destroyed.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
[3]     The following statements in Ray MacFarlane’s letter to me dated 14 October 1994, reproduced here in italics for convenience, merit careful consideration:
 
Thank you for your letter of 4 October 1994 to Crawford Beveridge seeking comments on your departure from your contract post at Enterprise Ayrshire (EA). As Mr Beveridge is on leave at present, I have been asked to respond on his behalf.
I am confident that the officers in EA have dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner. I realise that this will be a disappointing response for you, but have to inform you that, so far as Scottish Enterprise is concerned, the matter is now closed.
Ray MacFarlane confirms that my request for information on 4 October 1994 was to Scottish Enterprise, not to Enterprise Ayrshire. However, the response only refers to the actions of officers in Enterprise Ayrshire. There is no reference at all to any complaints or review process having been carried out by Scottish Enterprise yet Scottish Enterprise unreasonably considered the matter closed.
 
Consequently, your assertion that it is evident that my complaint was investigated and dealt with at that time is contradicted by the available evidence.
 
In reality Scottish Enterprise never processed my original concerns detailed in my email dated 17 August 1993 as a complaint.
 
And the report produced by Scottish Enterprise on 20 August 1993 and sent to Police Scotland at that time and again on 15 April 2016 was clearly defective, having concealed material evidence, as detailed in my previous correspondence. 
 
In any event the Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 was not sent to me by Scottish Enterprise until 7 July 2016 therefore it cannot be regarded as having been a response to my original complaint.    
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
     
[4]     I provided evidence to you of Audit Scotland’s position. That evidence clearly included Audit Scotland’s conclusion that Scottish Enterprise’s responses in this case had been disingenuous. In addition, that evidence recorded that Audit Scotland did not want to get drawn in if I was seeking recompense for my dismissal.
 
In my letter to you dated 21 December 2017 I detailed that evidence and provided a copy of Audit Scotland’s Notes on this case dated 20 August 2004 which included the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
Mr Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from the July accounts but for his actions ....................... Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the July accounts.
Responses to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here ................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was allegedly instructed to exclude them.
 
.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn in.
 
Your suggestion that Audit Scotland investigated this case properly and supported Scottish Enterprise’s position is simply another blatant inaccuracy.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
    
[5]     Firstly, available evidence, including important evidence arising in the last three years, proves that the police did not investigate this case in 1993. The report that was submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal’s Office in 1993 was the Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993, already shown to be seriously defective in previous correspondence.
 
Secondly, Scottish Enterprise copied that same defective report to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 along with incompatible documentary evidence further undermining the veracity of that report.
 
Since overwhelming documentary evidence now available shows that Scottish Enterprise misled the police in 1993 and again in 2016 your suggestion that Police Scotland investigated this case properly is absolutely false.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
[6]     The reason my correspondence about this matter has spanned many years is that Scottish Enterprise have been persistently uncooperative and evasive. This is a very grave situation in the context of alleged financial irregularities in a public agency that have yet to be properly addressed. 
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
[7]     I already presented to you and detailed in my letter dated 21 December 2017 the following statements from Scottish Enterprise’s letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
Mr Cairns continued to revisit this matter with Scottish Enterprise ..........and in 2011 I had reluctantly to inform him that unless he had new evidence, Scottish Enterprise would not continue to correspond with him on this matter .....
 
Important new evidence did arise thereafter but Scottish Enterprise culpably disregarded it.  
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
[8]     My complaint has never been dealt with.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
[9]     Scottish Enterprise have never investigated my complaint therefore in reality Scottish Enterprise have expended no resources in processing my complaint.
 
Your pretence that Scottish Enterprise did so is a disgraceful falsehood which will be a matter of serious concern to the general public in due course.
 
I will be publishing this letter on my blog which has been viewed 50,000 times to date.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
[10]     My concerns are listed in this letter.
 
 

Monday, 12 February 2018

WARNING TO MR PAUL LEWIS, INTERIM SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OF POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNICATING FALSE INFORMATION KNOWINGLY


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

 11 February 2018

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

Glasgow G2 6HQ

 


 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

Yesterday I commented on Ms Hannah’s response on your behalf to my subject access request dated 21 December 2017 in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

 

To


Today at 10:25

Dear Ms Hannah,

Thank you for your email. All the attachments are irrelevant.

You have confirmed that you do not have a copy of a response to my original complaint. In addition, your email confirms that you do not have copies of the outcomes of any reviews of a response to my original complaint.

The absence of these documents could be as a result of Scottish Enterprise having disposed of them or as a result of no response ever having been produced and no outcomes of any reviews ever having been produced.

Which of these main possibilities do you hold to be a true statement of the facts?

Available evidence proves the second main possibility to be a true statement of the facts on this issue.

I have a copy of the Information Commissioner's Mr Benedict Elliott's Note from January 2017 in which he records that you argued that no documents should be disposed of in this case. He does not record any statement from you that documents had already been disposed of.

Further proof that the second main possibility is a true statement of the facts on this issue is available in the form of several letters from Chief Executives of Scottish Enterprise that have already been drawn to Mr Lewis's attention in which there is no reference to any response to my original complaint and no reference to the outcome of any review.

Consequently, the evidence indicates that Scottish Enterprise never produced a response to my original complaint nor did they produce an outcome of any review.

This is of course a matter of grave concern that requires urgent attention.


Yours sincerely,

                                  Eddie Cairns

 

 

As my comments noted, Ms Hannah’s email confirms that Scottish Enterprise has no record of any response to my original complaint and no record of an outcome to any subsequent review.

 

I informed Ms Hannah that I have a copy of the Information Commissioner's Mr Benedict Elliott's Note from January 2017 in which he records that Ms Hannah argued that no documents should be disposed of in this case and that he does not record any statement from Ms Hannah that documents had already been disposed of.

The very damaging falsehoods about me supposedly having exhausted Scottish Enterprise’s complaints process were stated by Ms Lena Wilson in her letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP on 30 May 2012 and by Mr Iain Scott in his letter to Mr Bob Doris MSP on 27 November 2013 amongst other instances. Such falsehoods resulted in these representatives ceasing to act on my behalf.

 

In letters dated 5 November 2013 and 7 March 2014 Mr Doris tried in vain to obtain relevant clarifications from Scottish Enterprise on the matter of the alleged financial irregularities and the purported complaints process.

 

Copies of all these documents are attached.

 

I formally request a review of the decision notified to me by Ms Hannah on your behalf.

 

I would remind you again of the potentially disastrous consequences of knowingly communicating false information in this case.

 

Yours sincerely,

                               Eddie Cairns

 

POSSIBLE ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AGAINST SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

6 February 2018

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

Glasgow G2 6HQ

 


 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 I formally request subject access disclosures in respect of alleged new evidence of financial irregularities arising since the completion of the last review by Police Scotland in this case on 31 May 2016.

 

Specific information notified to the COPFS by the Information Commissioner on 4 December 2009 as likely to form my personal data included the following:

(a)     all records of correspondence, documents, evidence, or other items sent to, or by me, irrespective of the sender (including external bodies)

(b)     any internal or external communications (including email) about me including:

     (i)     any speculation or expressions of opinion regarding my reasoning or motivation behind my complaints and requests for clarification.

     (ii)     any advice (including legal advice), comments, or reports on COPFS’s duties to respond to, or otherwise how to handle, my correspondence, requests for clarification, complaints, and information request(s).

     (iii)     any other expressions of opinion about me.

(c)     any information recording contact COPFS staff have had with me.

(d)     my witness statements and any other information provided by me, or records of evidence provided by me, in relation to ‘the fraud case’.

(e)     the records of any investigation into COPFS staff, or subsequent disciplinary action, in relation to their actions in relation to, or treatment of, me.

(f)     any comments about me and my complaints expressed by persons accused by me.

The disclosures to me from the COPFS on 6 April 2017 containing the letter from the Information Commissioner to the COPFS dated 4 December 2009 are attached. As a result of my responses to these disclosures the COPFS are currently reviewing my concerns in this case.

In accordance with this formal request under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 the same categories of information now require to be disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise in respect of alleged new evidence of financial irregularities arising since the completion of the last review by Police Scotland in this case on 31 May 2016.

 

It is recorded in the attached disclosures that the Information Commissioner considered the COPFS to have contravened the Data Protection Act 1998 in my case. Several communications from the Information Commissioner were required in order to get the COPFS to act lawfully towards me, including the threat of issuing an Information Notice compelling the COPFS to comply and the threat of the case being considered for formal regulatory action.

 

I hope such action will not be required in Scottish Enterprise’s case.

 

Yours sincerely,

                                    Eddie Cairns