Police Accountability

GAP IN POLICE /SOCA ACCOUNTABILITY AS REGARDS THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002

The is unfortunately a gap in holding the police / SOCA of this country (The UK) to account as regards the above Act. You will see that Mr D.Wain / Sourcechem's serious complaint against has been adjudged outside the remit of either regulator. What a poor state of affair for the leading modern industrial country such as ours.

How does a person go not to obtain justice. Either hide there goods the best they can or even bu bi-trap them !. To keep the police / SOCA from stealing & or destroying them.

Reply Dated 25 Jan 2010 to Alleged SOCA Libel

Reply to SOCA Alleged Libel of the 15 Jan 2010

Have send this letter to the SOCA London main office in reply . By recorded delivery . With an invoice for another £5,000 damage they caused by illegally destroying legal goods of Mr D.Wain / Sourceachem.

The blog in the opinion of Mr D. Wain represents a true & fair views of the conduct of the SOCA & it's officers in regards to the investigation / harassment . Mr D.Wain / Sourceachem have & are enduring at the hands of the SOCA.

As to an particular allegations or comments made . Mr D.Wain / Sourceachem promised to correct an errors found , give a publish apology / remove any articles that are inaccurate. Where this is found after the matter has been properly investigated. This has already been done with one article published over funds being held illegally. So lets see if the SOCA takes us up on this ?. I doubt it somehow !.

If the SOCA spent just part of it effort investigating the legality / human rights aspects to it policies . Also if investigated allegations of wrong doing by it's officers in a prompt manor. Such publications would not be required.

The British public have the right to know what is going on in their name.

Was SOCA's fraud investigation illegal ?

LETS LOOK AT THE ALLEGED BENEFIT FRAUD SLOUGH SOCA INVESTIGATED.

On or shortly after the 02 Sep 2009 .Mr D.Wain was interviewed under caution at Maidenhead Police Station . As well as being interviewed about other serious matter he was interviewed about alleged "Benefit fraud" . At the time & in the interview he objected as it was outside there powers & hence 'ultra vires' but that went over the officers heads. They carried on with the interview. Mr Wain refused to answer any of their questions as it was ultra vires.

Lets have a look at the legislation: The Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005.

2 Functions of SOCA as to serious organised crime

(1) SOCA has the functions of—

(a) preventing and detecting serious organised crime, and

(b) contributing to the reduction of such crime in other ways and to the mitigation of its consequences.

(2) SOCA’s functions under subsection (1) are exercisable subject to subsections (3) to (5) (but subsection (3) does not apply to Scotland).

(3) If, in exercising its function under subsection (1)(a), SOCA becomes aware of conduct appearing to SOCA to involve serious or complex fraud, SOCA may thereafter exercise that function in relation to the fraud in question only—

(a) with the agreement of the Director, or an authorised officer, of the Serious Fraud Office, or

(b) if the Serious Fraud Office declines to act in relation to it.

(4) If, in exercising its function under subsection (1)(a), SOCA becomes aware of conduct appearing to SOCA to involve revenue fraud, SOCA may thereafter exercise that function in relation to the fraud in question only with the agreement of the Commissioners.

(5) Before exercising its function under subsection (1)(b) in any way in relation to revenue fraud, SOCA must consult the Commissioners.

(6) The issue of whether SOCA’s function under subsection (1)(a) continued to be exercisable in any circumstances within subsection (3) or (4) may not be raised in any criminal proceedings.

(7) In this section “revenue fraud” includes fraud relating to taxes, duties and national insurance contributions.

(8) In this Chapter “the Commissioners” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

The alleged Crime in question . Is certainly not 'Servo us Crime' not from their allegations was the crime allegedly committed 'organised (IE 2 more more person working on the crime). Well you might say well how do you define 'Serious Crime' . maybe they thought it was serious crime. Well the question then is did they have agreement of 'The Serous Fraud Office ?' Something in very much doubt !.

So their decision to charging some one with such fraud looks like a complete abuse of process. Unless they have the permission ?.

What should happen if in the course of a SOCA investigation if they come across other matters such a benefit fraud ?. They should pass the information to either the DWP or the relevant local authority concerned.

SOCA Alleged Libel Letter Dated 15 Jan 2010

The SOCA sent Mr D.Wain a letter dated the 15 Jan 2010 . Signed only "SOCA" , very Orwellian !. In this letter they try to silence publications such as this which are telling the truth of officers of their employ & policies when they are illegal & or against the public interest.

Now it this blog disappears suddenly you will know why. The SOCA don't like the PUBLIC being told the TRUTH . They would rather 'shoot the messenger' than deal with the message (figuratively speaking of course).

The SOCA would do far better to investigate some of these allegations. They would then be in a position to judge weather or not this blog & other reports are telling the truth or not.

The letter goes on the say there are established processes for registering formal complaints against the SOCA. Well Mr D.Wain / Sourceachem have tried them, & they are blocked at every turn. Just look back in the previous posting of complaints to the IPCC. Have the IPCC found any of the complaints to be infounded ?, no. The IPCC have passed the complaints to the PSD at Slough SOCA . Who have avoided investigation ANY of them for various reasons. Even if these complaints are not only of a disciplinary nature but of criminal acts allegedly committed by there officers / SOCA. You the reader will have to judge the real reason why. Sourceachem has also tried other avenues eg the Parliamentary Ombudsman & the local MP who has been very helpful & has agreed to speak for the defence at the trial.

All we want is an independent investigation into these matters. Not only in the interest of Mr D.Wain / Sourceachem but for the wonder public interest.

The SOCA would do well to read up on the 'McLibel' & it's out come. Yes McDonald did win of some grounds on which the libel was composed but i was a Pyrrhic victory. The bad publicity cost the company dear. Far more that could have been generated from & distribution of some leaflets. As well as they had to pay the court costs. As the defendants had no funds to claim on.

Now i say to the SOCA. I'm being totally candid here. If any allegations are investigated & found to be false . Soureachem will either publish a complete retraction & an apology to any officer wronged in any of the story's run.

Now if they are even thinking of suing Mr D.Wain for libel they will also have to be sure of their facts too. Not good getting into the high court in London & it then comes out in court that the allegations are true.

It makes you wounder how much longer they will be loyally backing , DI Paul Read of Slough SOCA. How long will it be before wiser heads pro vale & he is cut lose. Far better that many think to route out the 'odd bad apply' before it infects the whole organization.

There is am old say "The truth will out" .

We have also taken steps to have out blogs published widely across the world in various jurisdiction not amenability to the gagging influences of the SOCA.

Isleworth Crown Court 14 Jan 2010

The CPS called this hearing at Isleworth Crown Court on the 14/01/10 . I thought the hearing was to relax the 'restraining order' that is against myself / Sourceachem. I was only asked to attend well into the morning of the day of the hearing by the defense legal team. Which would not allow me time to find out how to get there & then to actually travel there physically. I don't blame Counsel or any other the defense team . As they had asked the CPS not to hold the hearing.

So you can see what you get for asking the CPS in a nice reasoned way to allow correct a mistake (or should i say deliberate omission) see the the previous letter to David Trovato As it was you remember the SOCA who applied for the order to fatally damage the business . Using the pretext that the assets were at risk of being disposed of before the criminal trial ends.

So it seemed reasonable to give the CPS the benefit of the doubt . After all it they who have been 'poisoned chalice' by the SOCA.

Now lets look at or" their argument for not allowing Sourceachem to operate ONE of it's own bank accounts.

If we take the CPS's argument see below in the letter you kindly forwarded to me. He gives the game away here too. Note the part about "The 'Whole Prosecutions Case" As he knows it could fall like a pack of playing cards:
Then take this from Glenn Robinson's Whiteness statement see below he really give the game away as to the real purpose of the order in the first place. To stop a legal business from trading by the back door. You have to also remember he's a 'lacky' of DI Paul Read of SOCA.

This is from David Trovato's letter of the 09 Dec 2009 to me where their own solicitor says:

Below you will see a copy of the so called 'cutting list' of chemicals I'm not allowed to see due to the current Court Bail conditions. All these chemicals are white powders except one which in the flake form:

Now if you compare this with the unamended sales list of Sourceachem's (see below)
PRODUCT
4-Acetaminophenol
Acid of Boron Flakes
Almond Oil
4-Aminobenzoic Acid [p-Aminobenzoic acid PABA
Ammonium Bicarbonate
Ammonium Chloride
Ammonium Formate
Ammonium Sulphate
Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C)
Atropine sulphate
Avobenzone
BIS(2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4-PIPERIDINYL) SEBACATE [Sunsorb 770 (HALS-770)]
Borax Powder(Di-Sodium tetraborate 10-water)
Boric Acid Powder
Butamben Base
Gamma Butrolactone (GBL) None Controlled Drug Declaration Required.
Caffeine Anhydrous (1,3,7-Trimethylxanthine)
Calcium Carbonate
Calcium Gluconate
Calcium Hydroxide
Calcium Lactate
Calcium Sulphate
Camphor
Chloral Hydrate(Trichloroacetaldehyde hydrate)
Chloroform Please See Trichloromethane
Citric Acid
Coal Tar
Coconut Oil
Copper Sulphate (Blue Vitrol)
Dichloromethane
Dimethylforamide(DMF)
Dimethyl Sulphoxide (DMSO)
Ethanedioic Acid[Supplied as agents,not principles]Please SeeOxalic Acid
Ethyl P-Amino benzoate (Benzocaine)
Ethyl P-Amino benzoate (Benzocaine)[Low Density]
Ethyl P-Amino benzoate Hydrochloride
Eucalyptus Oil
Ferrous Sulphide
Ferrous Sulphate
Formamide
Please see Methanamide
Fullers Earth Powder
Formaldehyde[Supplied as agents, not principles]
Kaolin (Light)
Hydroquinone (Quinol)
4-hydroxyindole
Iodine
Inositol
Lactic Acid(2 Hydroxypropanoic)
Lactose MONOHYDRATE (Pharma Grade)
Lidocaine Base
Lidocaine
Hydrochloride (2-DIETHYLAMINO-N-(2'6'-DIMETHYLPHENYL)ACETAMIDE HCL
Lithium Carbonate
Litmus Paper [Blue]
Litmus Paper [Red]
Magnesium Carbonate
Mannitol
Menthol
Methanamide (Formamide)
Methyl Salicylate (Oil Of Wintergreen)
N-(Ethoxycarbonylphenyl)-N'-Methyl-N'-Phenylformamidine [UV-1
Meso-Erythritol
Oxalic Acid
[Supplied as agents not principles]
Peppermint Oil
Phenacetin (4'-Ethoxyacetanilide)
Phenol Liquefied[Supplied as agents not principles]
Phenolphthalein
Potassium Bicarbonate
Potassium Bromide
Potassium Iodide
Procaine Hydrochloride (2-Diethylaminoethyl 4-aminobenzoate hydrochloride)
Quinine Sulphate
Salicylic Acid
Sodium Bicarbonate
Sodium Chloride
Sodium Citrate
Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (Sodium dodecyl sulphate)
Sodium Perborate
Sodium Salicylate
Sodium Thiosulphate
Starch (Maize)
Sulphur
Tartaric Acid (2,3-Dihydroxybutanedioic Acid )
Trichloromethane (Chloroform)
1,3,7-Trimethylxanthine
Zinc Oxide

You right from the start can see many items that are not on one list but on the other & vice versa. Many items are liquids anyway & could not possibly be cutting agents.

His other argument the one of 'cash sales' . Only Bank of England notes & coins are legal tender in England. Cheques, bank drafts, bank transfers , credit cards etc are not. So a customer has a legal right to pay in cash. Also as Sourceachem doesn't take Credit or Debit cards how else can a sale operate. Unless the sale is on credit terms or the payment is taken & cleared before the goods aren't supplied. This is often not possible or convenient.

The effect of the order is to make all transactions currently cash only!.So as far as sales go it's self defeating in his own argument.

The CPS's policy is one of 'prior restraint' . I.e. they know someone is going to do something illegal before they do it . How do they know that ! [a bit of mind reading har..har..]. So it's right to stop them before they can even do it they would say. If you take that policy to it's logical conclusion. You would convict people before the crime had even been committed or planned.

We have yet to touch on the Human Rights Act.

So i ask all supporters to please take time out & call Mr David Trovato of the Central Confiscation Unit of CPS on 020 7796 8047 & demand he:

• Respects Mr D. Wain's human right,
• Removed the threat contempt of court
• Allows Sourceachem at least ONE bank account.
  

Tax Return 2008/09 Due 31 Jan 2010

Mr D. Wain & the business Sourceachem are of course properly resisted with the HMRC as required & has a 10 digit UTR number from HMRC confirming this.

Mr D.Wain has been trying to complete an accurate tax return for the above. Unfortunately the SOCA having undertaken two raids on us : The first in Aug 2008 & the second in Sep 2009 . In which they have removed all the financial records : Invoices, bank statements, accounting books, cash books etc. Also having failed to make copies of these available. Or course has lead to the complete impossibility in producing an accurate return.

So after consultation with HMRC it was agreed an rough estimate would be agreed. This then to be filed electronically as the final date for completely been missed by the SOCA by their behavior.The return having been completed on the 13 Jan 2010 & a receipt obtained by Mr Wain.

Now we are now faced with another problem: The actual payment of the taxes due due to this restraining order obtained by the SOCA. This order has frozen ALL the bank accounts both business & personal. So the legal advisers have been asked to please deal with the matter with the CPS (who are actually freezing the accounts). This has been done in a timely manor (on the 13 Jan 2010) so to as leave time for payment.

Now if payment is late Mr D.Wain interest will be imposed & then if it's late a 5% surcharge is payable. That seems hardly fair as Mr D.Wain would be happy to pay as he & the business do every year. If it were not for the actions of the SOCA or the CPS.

Watch this space for news of the payment/ penalties. Or maybe the SOCA will try & used it as yet another way to punish Mr D.Wain for running a legal business which they do not seem to like.

'Criminal Lifestyle' is what Mr Glenn Robinoson States Mr Wain has. Lets Investigate

Mr Glenn Robinson of the SOCA Stated Mr Wain has in his Witness Statement .

• Quest: How many motor vehicles do you own ?. Answer: None.
• Que: What to use for transport ? Ans: I use my trusty old mountain bicycle, walk or go by public transport.
  
• Que:Do you have a Chauffeur to drive you?. Ans: No. I occasionally have to use a minicab if that counts.
  
• Que: How many properties do you own ?. Ans:None
• Que: What sort of accommodation do you live it ?. Ans: I live in a 1 bed Council flat on an estate.
• Que: Do you own or have use of any Yachts, boats ? .Ans: None. I did have a dinghy as i child but out grow it.
• Que: How often do you travel abroad ? Ans:Have not traveled abroad since i was a child.
  
• Haven't got a current Passport ? Ans: No it expired many years ago.
• Que: Do you own any Race Horses? Ans: I own no animals.
• Que: Do you have a plasma TV ?. Ans: No.
• Que: Do you own a business? Ans: I set up Sourceachem in 2004 & still am it's proprietor. I own no other businesses.
• Que: What did your mother make of the allegation "you have a criminal lifestyle ? Ans: She laughed & said " you, you never go anywhere" !.
• Que: Do you have many partners or girl friends ?. Ans: No . I do have some pen friends.
  
• Que: Have you much jewelry ? or maybe in nice Rolex ?. No & no.
  
• Que: Wain, you don't seem to have what people would normally accept as a criminal lifestyle.Ans:I can't see it either. Just something else made up or distorted by the SOCA.