Chartered Insurance Institute CII Caught Out in Scam
Press Release Newswire @ ScamBuster.TV
CII “Certificate of Conviction” Under Challenge
Petition Update & Press Release
Chartered Insurance Institute faces serious questions following new evidence that directly challenges the basis of an ongoing investigation into a member’s professional standing.
Formal challenge submitted A formal notice has now been issued challenging the evidence currently being relied upon by the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII).
During a recorded telephone conversation with a CII investigator, identified as Nirosha, it was confirmed that the Institute is relying on a “Certificate of Conviction” dated 16 March 2017, signed by an individual named Andrew Bate, as proof of an alleged criminal conviction.
This claim has now been subjected to detailed scrutiny.
Forensic review exposes contradictions A forensic review of the evidence bundle supplied by the Financial Conduct Authority reveals a critical inconsistency:
The FCA’s own internal records do not contain the 2017 certificate Instead, the FCA relies on a different certificate dated 30 December 2015 This creates an immediate and serious evidential conflict.
Court confirmation: no sealed order exists Further investigation has produced formal written confirmation from Harrow Crown Court:
The Court Manager, Mr Steven Williams, has confirmed that no sealed order of conviction exists in this matter This is a crucial point.
A valid criminal conviction requires a properly issued and sealed court order. Without it, the legal foundation of any such claim is fundamentally undermined.
Key concerns identified Based on the evidence now available, the material relied upon by the CII appears to:
Conflict with the FCA’s own internal records Lack any supporting sealed court order or judicial confirmation Have been issued retrospectively (2017) after the FCA’s original enforcement action began In addition:
The investigator was unable to identify the source of the original allegation The explanation provided was simply that it was “public knowledge” This indicates that no independent verification process has been carried out and raises concerns about reliance on unverified or hearsay information.
Recorded conversation raises further issues The linked recording highlights several troubling points:
The investigator could not confirm the origin of the allegation No clear court-issued document was verified during questioning Requests for clarification were met with limited or incomplete answers This reinforces concerns about transparency and evidential standards.
Formal requests issued to the CII In light of these findings, the following actions have been formally requested:
Full disclosure of the source The CII is requested to identify the origin of the information relied upon, in line with the right to examine third-party material. Immediate suspension of proceedings All current action should be paused until a valid, sealed court order is produced — which the court has confirmed does not exist. Official acknowledgment of challenge The “Certificate of Conviction” should be formally recorded as disputed, defective, and unsubstantiated pending verification. Supporting evidence submitted The challenge is supported by:
A formal letter from Harrow Crown Court confirming no sealed order exists A comparative analysis of the two conflicting certificates (2015 vs 2017) Why this matters This case raises broader concerns about:
The standards of evidence used in professional investigations The risk of reputational harm based on unverified claims The importance of due process and transparency For any regulated professional, the reliance on inconsistent or unsupported documents presents a serious issue.
Petition update These developments significantly strengthen the concerns raised in the ongoing petition.
They point to:
A lack of verifiable evidence Contradictions between regulatory bodies A failure to establish a clear and reliable factual foundation Conclusion The central issue remains unchanged:
No sealed court order has been produced, the evidence is inconsistent, and the source of the allegation remains unidentified. Until these points are addressed, the validity of the investigation — and the documents it relies upon — remains in question.
Further updates will follow as formal responses are received.
CII Investigator Caught Faking It
#Justice #Privacy #Wealth #Crime #Bitcoin #Freedom #Cryptofi #vaccine #petition #scambusterTV #Survivor2020
