Ana səhifə

Affidavit I am uneducated My 14 years research and actual experience with100% evidences

Yüklə 1.42 Mb.
ölçüsü1.42 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

Director of Bisco named Bernard Raj 15.03.1999 Public Prosecution

I am requesting again to the SCB – head office and Banking of Ombudsman to - please re – open the case and give me justice. I have lost a lot against the bank guarantee – and on having trust in the banks reputation. I have prepared this website in case if anything happens to me then SCB will be responsible for it


From January 19.01.2003st I am requesting the public prosecutor to reopen the case, but the prosecutor is not giving permission to reopen. Why?


Date: August 17, 2008

Mr. Ahmed Abdullah Mohammed Al Mullah,

PO Box 6651,

Dubai, UAE

Dear Mr. Al Mullah, 050 5766611

Re: Matter related to Mr. Dayal Mansukhani – Besco International
Draft Letter- Al Mullah

Re: Matter related to Mr. Dayal Mansukhani – Besco International

120months researched right report 15/8/98To15/8/2008


ENGLAND BANK HAS BIG MONEY POWER – AND BIG RELATIONS.Mr David British citizen has no respect for the UAE courts public prosecutor and Dubai crime laboratory, as well as their own officers signature with ID and bank rubber stamps with all these evidences clearly available – even if the bank does not certifies the check in this manner I DID NOT I SO I WENT TO DUBAI CENTRAL BANK AND ALSO TO THE INDIAN CONSULATE, IN DUBAI. BUT THEY ALSO COULD DO NOTHING TO HELP AN INDIAN IN DUBAI.I ALSO WEN TO LONDON FOR BANK OF OMBUDSMAN COULD NOT HELPJUSTICE NOTHING TO HELP AN INDIAN IN WORLD. I AM ATTACHING ALL THESE EVIDENCES.


Almullah is the UAE local of this company from 1995 to 1997 july. He has got involved in this case illegal of standard chartered. Later he sold his shares to another local and the company changed and his checks were issued after that.

Standard chartered bank certified his checks, when Besco international had already closed down. The checks were issued only after he resigned. 14 years ago, and till date the payment has not been made.

There is no fault of Almullah in this case if we approach him in decent way and make him understand this case he will definitely do settlement.

If he incase does not will to do settlement and is looking forward for this case’s benefit then he will get involved in this faulty case because this will prove that he did all this deliberately and did not finish his banking powers even after the company had closed down.

If there is a good lawyer then he can take his power and file a criminal case on Standard chartered bank and Bernard Raj.

Reason to file a case will be why did bank issue bank certified checks when the accounts were closed, or there was no availability of cash and what guarantee did they take for issuing a good for payment instrument.

5.8.98 Standard chartered letterhead proves that banks staff has illegally certified these 2 checks.

According to banking rules after 1992, the banks were not allowed to issue such checks. The bank was only allowed to issue letter on the company letterhead to state any guarantees. If the bank has done so, then it is crime. Because they have in 1996 admitted in this letter, that they had certified these checks in 1996, to their clients.

In this same letter, if you will see this letter was issued on 1998 where they said that on 15th October the check was deposited in October 1998. how is this possible? Ths letter has enough of false information and points to prove that the bank has committed false actions.

Even after giving bank guarantee the opposite party has till date not paid the amount, and took loan against it.

Whoever can fight this case will get the fees to his choice.

If Almullah files this case against the bank the case cost I will offer, and this case will be fair and al mullah will get good reputation.

The other case to be filed on Raj Bernard. Why did he involve Almullah when his business / relation with Almullah after 1997 July was over?

Why did he issue almullah’s company check why did not he issue LLC checks. This complaint can be filed by me if not Almullah.

Third case, K K Bose, to release my checks and accounts, and certified documents and the case history. He has to get me the bank guarantee checks.


This file is proof that BESCO is 100% local ALMULLAH.

Almullah The passport copy is attached. Almullah had given the power of attorney to Raj Bharnal Almullah’s signature is below.Almullah is working as a Dubai labour officer with a high designation. He can approve as many labor visas as he want. He owns a man power recruitment company and supplies to different companies. Raj took loan for this company and he issued PDC cheques of this company. All of them were bounced, so Almullah is responsible.

please check Raj’s visa. He has a work visa. Not a business visa.


I am attaching the trade licence photo copy from 1995- 1997 july . Almullah is the owner and Raj is the manager.

This is the certificate of license issued by UAE government that BESCO is 100% local Almullah company ,

owner is and he gave him power of attorney to Raj. So if any cheque is bounced then Almullah is responsible for it.


The below document is the copy of BESCO LLC chamber of commerce certificate.

This letter proves that Raj had given me PDC cheques worth more than 900,000 and stopped the

payment from the next month. Instead of receiving 900,000 I received 38,800 from Dubai drydocks.


Arabic translation of the above mentioned letter.
Notice A

Date: 26th July 2006

Standard Chartered Bank, Legal and Compliance, UK &Europe


Sub: Complaint against your Dubai branch office about supporting and shielding criminal

activities against general public.


Dayal Mansukhani
Ref#: 20060726105632GL5Z_GL5_49_0.dat) - Reply to your mail
The Managing Director,Standard Chartered Bank, Legal and Compliance, UK &Europe 22

Billiter Street London EC3M2RY Telephone +44(0)2072807477 Fax +44(0)2072807478

Dear Sirs, Sub: Complaint against your Dubai branch office about

supporting and shielding criminal activities against

general public.
I am an Indian businessman who was in Dubai for 25 years and then shifted to Australia for 4 years. I was in the activity of transport business, mechanical works etc and in the course of my business it was usual for me to accept cheques with bank guarantee on the cheque. In such cases it was a practice to mark the cheque as “Good for Payment”. I was not a customer of your bank. However I had dealing with your bank due to cheques received by me from your client. These cheques were dishonored; there were serious allegations of fraud and crime. There has already been some passage of time and it is likely that you may at the very beginning be inclined to treat this communication as an effort to re-open a closed matter. However, please bear with me and read on this communication.
I am writing to you today after having realized that this was not a single or isolated instance. Thousands of innocent businessmen suffered losses running into millions of dollars due to a well planned crime by certain criminal elements acting in collision with the insiders in your bank. The top officials of your bank clearly understood the seriousness of the matter. However they wanted either to save their face or to protect their skin and hence they did not report the matter to you. The strength of your organization was misused by the top management in Dubai for thwarting justice. This was also against your policy of Corporate Governance. Secondly I have my serious doubts that these top officers were having prior knowledge of the crime and they were supporting the same. Maybe what I discovered is only the tip of the iceberg. I do not know whether these people had any role in money laundering or in channelising funds for terrorist activities.
As an Indian citizen I am duty bound to inform true facts to you, so that you can take steps even today to set your house in order. After the terrorist attack on World Trade Centre the entire world has adopted special laws to protect banking system from misuse. In the light of changed circumstances, I would like to state that the previous conduct of your Dubai branch should be looked into in a proper perspective. Dubai branch of your bank had deliberately and willfully indulged into the practice of issuance of fraudulent bank guarantees and collecting income other than through official channels. I was one of the victims of this practice. One of my own debtors namely one Mr. Raj Bernard submitted to me cheques which were marked “Good for Payment”. When I tried to encash these cheques in your Dubai branch, your Dubai branch did not make payments.
Please note that this was not the case of the fraud committed by only a third party. It was clearly admitted by your Dubai branch that your own officers had signed those cheques as “Good for Payment” I was further informed that the concerned officers had left the services of your bank and they were no more available in United Arab Emirates (UAE).
There were alterations in the cheques. These alterations were duly attested by your officers. A stand was taken by your Dubai branch that the signatures of the officers with regard to attesting of the alterations were not genuine signatures. Thus your Dubai branch merely disputed the signatures on alterations. It did not dispute the signatures on the original guarantee. The matter was investigated by the police authorities in Dubai. Unfortunately I was fighting the case single-handedly. I did not have any legal assistance. Secondly I was not aware about the total volume of the fraud .It was only at a later date that I came know that hundreds of people were similarly cheated by your officers. The modus operandi was as follows:-

  1. Your officers used to dishonestly and fraudulently issue confirmations of “Good for Payment” without credit inquiries and without there being a clear balance in their accounts. These officers might be doing so for their own benefits, but the fact remains that hundreds of such cheques marked as “Good for Payment” were making rounds in the market. Innocent parties were accepting these cheques in good faith.

  2. The business community in Dubai was believing in such cheques and was lending funds against such cheques on the belief that on due date your bank would make payment.

  3. It appears that your officers were not deliberately keeping any internal records for these types of cheques, in other words market credit was used under the stamp and seal of your bank. However, legally there was no record with your bank.

  4. This was a dangerous situation. As and when the cheques were likely to be dishonored, it was bound to create havoc. This indeed happened when the cheques started bouncing.

  5. When the top officers came to know about the fraud it was necessary for them to immediately nab the culprits from your own bank and hand over them to the investigating officers in Dubai. By doing so they could have interrogated the guilty and found out the exact quantum of the fraud. Thereafter all victims could have been given compensation by claiming the same from the insurance company.


I am aware of the fact that as per principals of Corporate Governance your bank is taking insurance policy to cover itself against a fraud. You have to complete certain formalities for this purpose such as filing a complaint with the police, cooperating with the police, setting right your internal systems etc. This should have been done by you in fairness and keeping in view your policy of corporate governance; however the top bosses in Dubai were hesitant to take such straight forward actions. This is because they might have feared disciplinary action against them. Either they were in collusion with the junior officers who had committed the fraud or they were negligent in not controlling the junior officers. I would not hesitate even in suspecting that the top officers might have very well shared the gains of such unethical practice adopted by the junior level officers. Then the cheques given to me bounced back with a reason “Refer to Drawer”, I was shocked. This is because the cheques were drawn by your bank’s client and were marked “Good for Payment” by your own bank. Therefore there was no question of returning of the cheques with a reason “Refer to Drawer”, I took up the matter with drawer of the cheque as well as with your bank. Since it was not possible for me to simply accept the dishonored cheque when I had in the first place accepted the cheques only and only because your bank had given its guarantee that the cheque would be honored.

Then your officers came and personally discussed with me. They in fact admitted that there was something wrong within your bank and there appeared to be a fraud on the part of some of your own officers. I was advised to once again represent the cheques. Accordingly I represented the cheques but to my dismay the cheques were once again dishonored. At this juncture the bank came out with a new theory that there was alteration in the cheque. (This was a dishonest stand. If at all there were alterations, the bank should have pointed this out in the first instance itself) The alteration was taken up with the police authorities. Then the police authorities started the investigations. I placed forward the following facts before them:

  1. The bank was not disputing its guarantee but was confining its allegation about forgery only in respect of the alterations made in the cheque.

  2. Throughout the investigations, the bank did not even whisper a word as to whether the account had sufficient balance on the date on which the guarantee (i.e. “Good for Payment” noting) was originally issued. If the noting was issued at a time when there was no balance, this per se showed involvement and fraud on the part of the officers.

  3. The bank also did not whisper a word throughout the investigations as to whether the original noting/guarantee of “Good for Payment” was duly recorded in the bank’s internal records. If this aspect was looked into, the fraud on the part of your junior officers would have come to light. The investigations (both by police authorities as also by the internal authorities) were bound to be incomplete unless the above aspects were duly disclosed and looked into.

  4. There was also a need to check and investigate into the cheques that were previously honoured by the bank. There was a clear likelihood that a number of cheques with the noting “Good for Payment” were presented to your bank and were honoured even though the cheque-passing official must have noticed at the time of passing the cheque that the “Good for Payment” noting is appearing without any internal records at the bank. In other words, if the bank’s officers had passed cheques in past by overlooking the apparent irregularity, this aspect per se showed that there was an involvement of the local management.

  5. It was ridiculous for your Dubai Branch to take a stand that the cheques were originally issued with bank’s “Good for Payment” noting and were just lying with me. It was undisputed that I was payee of the cheques. In this situation, there was no reason for me as a businessman to withhold the cheques with me. When the cheques could have been very much encashed by me even previously there was no reason for me to withhold the cheques.

  6. I also made complaints with various other authorities including the Central Bank of the UAE. The Central Bank of the UAE informed me as per its letter dated 11th may 2000 that the entire matter center’s around with alterations in the dates on the cheques in question. The refusal of your bank to honour the claims was based on such alterations and I was further informed by Central Bank of the UAE that your bank is prepared to defend any court proceedings which may be brought against it. Therefore I was advised by the Central Bank of the UAE that I should take whatever action I deem fit to solve this issue. Thereafter I approached your bank from time to time and even lodged a complaint against your bank with the office of the banking ombudsmen. The matter was reviewed by your office and I was informed by a letter dated 8th September 2000 that your bank’s position had not changed from that setout in previous letter dated 28th July 1998. Thereafter my complaint was once again rejected. The office of banking ombudsmen in London took a stand on the basis of submissions made by your bank that my complaint related to banking activities in Dubai and has no relevance to banking services provide in the UK (United Kingdom). Accordingly my complaint was rejected on grounds of jurisdiction; I was left with no option of pursuing the matter in London. In this connection I was further informed by the office of the banking ombudsmen as per letter dated 02nd October 2000 that they would not deal with my complaint because my complaint related to a banking service in Dubai which is outside the United Kingdom.

Prima facie it may appear that the present representation is belated. However you may appreciate that during this period I was not able to pursue my case on account of a number of circumstances beyond my control. Secondly there is also a change in circumstances during this period as explained herein below:
I was in Australia for 4 years between 2002 to 2006 and I returned to India recently, thereafter I consulted Legal firms as also certain NGO’s in India who assist non- resident Indians (NRI’s). For the first time I came to know that my grievance and my complaint is not an individual complaint but a complaint which is of a representative nature. Then I recalled my experience in the light of the advice received by me I learnt that the offence was much more serious than what I was thinking.
At this point of time, the relevance of the above referred aspects as per Sr. no. 1 to 6 above was brought to my notice by some of the other victims of the crime.
The bouncing of the cheques had not occurred only in my case. Hundred of cheques had bounced. Secondly in my case it was a straight forward transaction. In case of others there were more complications. Thirdly I could sustain the burden due to my good financial position as I was already a successful businessman. However a number of traders market in Dubai became bankrupt and they had to run away from Dubai. They had huge amount of sundry returns who had given them guarantee cheques from your bank. When these traders realized that the guarantee cheques were fake in the opinion of your bank they were shattered. Your bank disowned its responsibility and refused to pay, the individual traders had no other option but to either to declare bankruptcy or to simply leave the country. Hundreds of careers were shattered and hundreds of families were ruined.
If it was only relating to my case it could have been understood that it is a stray incident of fraud or offence. However how this could happen in hundreds of instances? It was evident that your officers had a role to play in the entire fraud. This generality of the fraud made it clear that the adversarial position taken by your bank was unjustified and was unbecoming of a banker. Your bank ought to have first investigated whether its officers had any role and thereafter taken steps to file a police complain against its own officers. This could have facilitated obtaining payment of insurance claims against fraud and to make payments to all the victims of the fraud. Instead your bank decided to deny the very truth about fraud at the cost of innocent victims of fraud who had believed your bank.

After a passage of time your bank might be under an impressions that the issues have become infructuous and hence nobody can take any measures against your bank. However with the recent campaign in the world against the use of banking channels particularly by criminals and terrorists groups, there is a ray of hope for a person like me to reopen this case and seek justice.

If your bank had taken this position in the past and is not willing to reverse the position even now, then your bank cannot be safe for general public today. If your bank had taken this position in U.A.E there is no reason why it cannot take such a position in India. Therefore unless your bank changes its stand and adopts a new position it would not be desirable for various countries to continue with the banking licenses given to your branches.
As you aware in countries like India, an individual incident is differentiated from a general phenomenon. In this particular instance there was a general phenomenon which affected the very basis of the existence of your bank as a sound financial institution. However, you deliberately pushed the matters below the carpet.
I am enclosing some of the vital documents by way of attachments. If you go through the letter dated 5th August 1998 addressed by you to the police authorities, it would make clear to you as to how your branch officers were dishonestly and fraudulently acting. When the letter was issued in August, the bank was already aware about future dishonour in October! This is ridiculous. This shows that the bank was playing a game. The real fact was as follows:

1. I had two cheques received from Mr. Raj Bernard. One cheque was dated 15th July 1998 and the other cheque was a postdated cheque bearing the date 15th October 1998.

2. On the cheque dated 15th July 1998 there was no alteration at all. It was also duly marked as “Good for Payment”

3. The cheque dated 15th October 1998 was bearing an alteration in date. However, the alteration appeared to have been authenticated by your officers. I had accepted this cheque in good faith. I was not aware of any fraud.

4. When I presented the first cheque dated 15th July, it was dishonoured with the reason “Refer to Drawer”. I was shocked and I contacted the bank. After telephonic discussion, the officers of the bank came to me and informed me that there is some internal fraud due to which a number of officers were shifted/terminated by the bank. They also informed that they had terminated credit facility of a number of clients whom they suspected to be involved in the fraud alongwith the officers. However, they agreed that I am entitled to encash the cheque. Accordingly, I presented the cheque again. This time, the bank returned the same with the reason of “Alteration”.

5. This left me with the only alternative to issue a legal notice to the bank as I was convinced that the bank was trying to refuse payment of a lawful obligation on some or the other pretext. When I issued a legal notice, the bank realized its mistake of taking the matter lightly. The bank realized that I would not leave the matter in the middle. If there was really an alteration, there was no reason for bank to keep quiet between 15th July to 18th July 1998. The bank must have filed police complaint forthwith. Bank did not do so. Bank also did not file a police complaint on second presentation. It is pertinent to note that only when I got a legal notice issued that the bank decided to file a police complaint. This was afterthought to cover up their lapses.

6.When the bank became aware of the difficulty that they would face on account of their officers’ misdeed, they first filed a police complaint thereafter based on the information that they had received about the cheque dated 15th October 1998, they tried to paint a dark picture of mine as if I was involved in the fraud. When the bank was in interaction with me, I myself had shown them the cheque dated 15th October 1998 in good faith.

7. Your officers then made a strategy to take advantage of the probable deficiency in the cheque dated 15th October. They did not give me a hint and in fact did not object to the second presentment of the cheque. However, in their letter written to police authorities in August 1998, they make a mention of the cheque dated 15th October as if they were making a forecast of the future. If they were going with clean hands, they should have narrated that they have found the cheque in my possession which they suspect to have been fraudulently made out with a guarantee. However, they did not aver so. On the contrary, they mentioned that the cheque “was presented on 15th October 1998”.

6. As regards the cheque dated 15th July 1998, the bank did not allege of any fraud at the time of first dishonour. They merely advised me to “Refer to Drawer”. They did not allege any alteration. They did not allege any fraud. They in fact orally agreed that the cheque should be once again represented. However, when I represented the same, they came out with the theory of forgery or alteration. This they did only on the basis of the knowledge that they gained about the cheque dated 15th October 1998 and after they realized that I am going the legal route.

7. Therefore it is crystal clear that whatever may be the position of cheque dated 15th October 1998, the previous cheque dated 15th July was very much a bonafide cheque. Bank dishonoured the same wrongly and routinely as the bank was dishonouring a number of cheques in defiance of its obligations. When I lodged police complaint and when the bank officials came to know that the deficiency in cheque dated 15th October could be utilized to tarnish my image, the bank decided to falsely claim that even the previous cheque dated 15th July was altered.

8. With this fraudulent objective, the bank brought out chemical alterations in the cheque and thereafter did not even return the cheque.

9. Dishonesty of the bank is clear from the fact that if at all the cheque dated 15th July was really a forgery the bank ought to have suo moto lodged a police complaint on first presentation of the cheque on 15th July 1998. Why the bank did not do so? Why did the bank wait for two presentments and thereafter filed a complaint only on receiving my legal notice.

Sir, “Fraud” has two definitions. One is internal fraud and another is fraud by a third party. If there was an internal fraud, the bank could not dispute its liability. E.g. someone buys traveler cheques and the bank officer had misappropriated the amount received from buyer of the cheque, this is an internal fraud. If the buyer of the cheque delivers the cheque to a shop, the shop cannot be denied reimbursement. My case falls under this category. I had received the cheques in good faith. I was not a party to the fraud. If Mr. Raj Bernard had colluded with your officers, how I can be punished?
When the cheque dated 15th July was presented, the bank ought to have realized that there is no internal entry about the “Good for Payment” noting. However as the signature was genuine, the bank had no defence. However as the bank was confident of its power and empire, it still tried to return the cheque. When I issued legal notice, the bank officers were angry. In the meantime, the bank officers had knowledge about the cheque dated 15th October 1998 and the bank officers made a strategy to mix up various issues.
The Government examiner (i.e. Public Prosecution In-charge) had initially held (In terms of his report no. 19/5412 dated 25th April 1999) that the cheque dated 15th October 1998 did not bear alteration. However, subsequently in my absence (i.e. when I was in Australia), your bank obtained a report dated 30th September 2003 on fresh examination of the cheques. If you desire, I shall send this report to you. This report mentions about alteration but is not sure about the same.
Thus there is some tampering with the cheque. However, who did this tampering is a matter of mystery. In my clear view, your officers themselves had tampered with the cheque after 15th July 1998. If the tampering took place before 15th July1998, your officers should have filed a complaint.
The bank first rejected the cheque on grounds of “Refer to Drawer” and then on grounds of “alteration”. When Government prosecution upheld my side and when I presented the cheque, it was returned on grounds of time-limitation.
Now in September 2003, the final report is still inconclusive. In the civil case too , your bank did not take a fair stand and in fact adopted an adversarial stand
Every action of the bank was an afterthought as evident from the above.
Even now it is not late. I hereby call upon you to take following actions:

  1. Call for all records of the case from your Dubai Branch. If you desire, I shall provide you with all documents that are available with me.

  2. Check up the record of the officers that were shunted out during 1997-99

  3. Also check the accounts where the credit facilities were called off during this period

  4. Also verify the records of all police complaints as also all cheques that were marked “Good for Payment” and were bounced on presentation. Check the same with reference to internal notings and correspondence of the Dubai Branch

  5. Upon getting satisfied about the bonafide of my complaint, please take suo moto legal action and also make reimbursement to me.

  6. You may also do some introspection and find out through your own sources as to how many businesses were destroyed during 1997-99 due to abrupt closure of facilities by you, what was the reason for such abrupt actions, how many other banks and innocent third parties were affected due to illegal return of cheques by you.

If you still fail to act in the matter, I shall take following measures against your bank:

  1. I shall file fresh civil/criminal cases

  2. I shall inform the regulating authority in U.K.

  3. I shall caution the regulating authorities all over the world where your bank has branches.

  4. I shall take up the matter with anti-terror organizations with specific demand to check up money-laundering and criminal nexus activities of your officers.

  5. I shall file petitions in every possible court (including Dubai, London and Mumbai) to cancel your banking license.

  6. I shall issue appeals and public advertisements to call for full information from General public in Dubai as to how many businessmen fled Dubai due to abrupt closure of facilities, how many businesses were shut down due to pressures from your bank, how the affairs of other banks were affected due to wrongful dishonours by your bank.

Sir, I have only one request. I might have suffered some setbacks in legal battles due to my own shortcomings. However, I was on right path. Mere passage of time or mere delay would not exonerate your bank from the fact that a crime has taken place. I have now presented a holistic picture to you.
Please look into the matter and take up the matter for a full-fledged investigation. If your desire any additional details or co-operation from me, I am every ready for the same.

  1. Last but not the least- with the great support and enthusiasm instilled in me by the Human Rights’ activists in Mumbai, I have made up my mind and decided to return to Dubai. I am not scared about arrest or any other actions. After depositing the amount and coming with clean hands, it would be definitely expected from the judiciary in Dubai that I must be given a fair hearing. Now since I am out of Dubai and I am in my own country in India, there is no reason for me to place my money in jeopardy. Usually, people who abscond after committing a crime do not return. I am not only returning and facing the trial, but I am putting myself at stake by offering to deposit the amount. Thus my person and my finances will be put to stake just for justice and for removing the stigma on me. This gesture would per se convince the judiciary that I am innocent and I should be given justice. The Human Rights group from Mumbai (India) who have given me courage, would also be monitoring the whole case and one or two volunteer lawyers from this group would be accompanying me. One Mr.Sanjeev G.Punalekar, is a Human Rights activist and edits a newspaper named “Civil Liberties”. He has also fought various litigations against Government of India. You may find his name and details by searching internet through He was accompanying me and appearing for me even in Australia. His contact details are furnished here below.

Mr. Sanjeev G.Punalekar, Advocate, High Court, 315, Birya House, 265, Perin Nariman Street, Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.(India). Mobile no. – 0091-9820095814
Yours truly
Dayal Mansukhani

This letter confirms that Bank issued Bank guarantee in my favour, therefore I must get payment and this Bank Guarantee they prove the above mentioned.

بدون نعمة الله لا شيء ممكن ، وكما في الإمارات العربية المتحدة هي بلد مسلم نذهب بنعمة الله.
من ناحية الحكومة ، وهي وظيفة مهمة جدا من الذراع التنفيذية الإمارات السبع التي لها صلاحيات لاتخاذ قرارات مستقلة.
أعطاني القوة لتحقيق السلام بلدي لتحقيق الصالح العام للدولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة . يرجى زيارة موقع الويب الخاص بي لفهم مستوى عال من المشاريع الخيرية أنا التي ستعود بالنفع على كل من في الإمارات
لماذا% 90 ٪ من الناس في هذا العالم ترى أن غاندي شبه الله وليس 100 وذلك لأن لأن غاندي لم يتصرف بشكل مستقل مما أسفر عن فوزه أنا لست محامى غاندي وجني مصباح علاء الدين السحري.أ وسوف تمكن الحكومات من زيادة عائداتها في فترة فى فترة قصيرة من الوقت حتى أن الجميع سيكون سعيدا وانه لن يكون هناك تقسيم وممارسة الحكم. وهذه الأمور تساعدنا في تحقيق رؤية غاندي لخلق نظام عالمي جديد يكرس السلام والصدق والمحبة والازدهار وبالتالي خلق الآلاف من غاندي ، وإنقاذ هذه الإمارات والعالم.
إذا كان حكام الإمارات السبع والتي لها صلاحيات لاتخاذ قرارات مستقلة. فإنها يمكن أن تعطي أمر إلزامي على كل بناء وانشاء جهاز الشهرة وسيتم تحديد سعر وسائل الاعلام من قبل مع الحكومة ليس أكثر من 2 إلى 3 فلس في الثانية الواحدة.
مصباح علاء الدين هو جودة المنتج و وسائل الإعلام التجارية ، مع تكلفة التصنيع 10-25000 درهم -- استثمار وقت واحد ، إذا كان الدخل من الإعلان يأتي الجهاز إلى الحد الأدنى من 1 إلى 3 تعبئة في الثانية الواحدة ،
فمن 1 درهم إلى 2,700 في الجهاز لمدة ساعة. إذا استخدمت لمدة 15 ساعة في اليوم ، يصبح من 2,700درهم كحد أدنى لكل جهاز يوميا. 2,700 X 25 X 375 ٪ = دخل

Per day per Mum media day Dhs 2,700 X 1000000 = 270000000000 X 25% 675,000,000 (Six billions seventy five millions per day). Thus the expense of the Government per day will be converted to savings. We will set up Mum media in every building when the order is passed.

اذاكان عدد جميع المبانى والمنشأت التى تستخدم الجهاز تقدر بحوالى مليون وحده اى ما يعادل دخل سنوى بحوالى 675,000,000 درهم حيث تقدر الوحدات والمنشأت كلأتى:
وعدد المطارات فى الامارات العربيه حوالى سبعة مطارات ، 77O للشقق الفندقية HOLIDAY 34562 ، مراكز التسوق 75. مجموع المباني الإقامة 66،6000 ، 245686 المباني التجارية في المجموع = 1000000 (تقريبا)
الإمارات العربية المتحدة والهيئات الحكومية مسؤولة أيضا عن رفاهية الأمة وسمعتها جيدة كذلك. لمساعدة وجعل "كل جميع المواد من الإمارات العربية المتحدة (سواء المحلية والوافدة) هو أفضل هدف لجميع موظفي القطاع العام. إذا كان يمكن القيام بذلك من خلال وسيلة من وسائل الإعلام المفهومه والمبتكرة التي تفيد كلا من الحكومة والسكان ككل بالتأكيد فإنه أمر يستحق النظر. إذا كان يمكن أن تجعل مليارات الدولارات لانقاذ الحكومة ونفس المبلغ من حساب الحكومة إذا فإنه يمكن انعاش الاقتصاد وتحقق دبي 365 يوما فى نموا من الازدهار الاقتصادى .
فى دولة الامارات العربية المتحدة يعيش حوالى أكثر من ثمانية ملايين شخص منهم العاملين والموظفين والمستثمريين الأجانب حيث جميع الفئات من الصناع والتجار ولهذا تجد كل شئ متاح مع وجود أكثر من منطقة حره فى الامارت ونحن أيضا نعيش فى دولة

الامارات العربية المتحدة منذ اكثر من اربعين عام فى سلام وأمن ولا يخفى على أحد ما يحدث فى بعض الدول العربية من مظاهرات و ثورات والحياة الكريمة وبعض العائلات التى شردت كل ذلك من أجل الحريه والعدالة

دايا منسوكهانى0507570737

Aburuf Legal Translation
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

إلى صاحب السمو الشيخ محمد بن راشد آل مكتوم، دبي، أ.ع.م Dubai 0507570737
المستأنف : السجن المركزي رقم هوية 176031
I am Uneducated I Need real justice100% give me?
Checks 7 Rulers partner per 7 Billions of dollars
Checks UAE nationals 890,000 join with channel partner per month Dh25,000 to Dh50,000
المستأنف هو مستثمر برئ في السجن ويُريد محامياً مخلصاً يقاتل لتحقيق العدالة الحقيقية.

لقد قام هذا الشخص البرئ بتقديم 5 بلاغات في شرطة الرفاعة وذلك من السجن المركزي لأنه منذ عام 1998 تجري مساندة الجريمة ولم يتم سماعها، تبريرها حتى اليوم والشخص البرئ يوجد خلف القضبان والمجرمون ينعمون بالحرية.

إن مؤسسات قانونية تأخذ الرسوم من المستثمرين وتساند المجرم والجريمة وحتى هذه البلاغات قد تم تسجيلها من السجن لدى النائب العام ولكن حتى تاريخه لم يتم تقديم بلاغات لعدد ثلاثة محامين.

إن مبلغ مطالبة التأمين لأجل الخاص بي هو 1.4 مليون. لقد قام وكيل التأمين راج برنارد واس سي بي بتأمين الخسائر ضد الأزمات بدبي والآن فقد حان الوقت لتغطية خسائري التي يرفضون سدادها كما أن الأزمة المالية قد ضربت أرجاء العالم.

لقد تم إرسال إلتماس من المشتكي البرئ – في إدارة النيابة العامة – إلى حكام الإمارات السبعة والآن مضى شهر ولم أتلقى أية أخبار حتى تاريخة.

إستئنافي :

بمشيئة الله فإنني موجود في السجن كما أنني أرسل هذا الرسالة الإلهية إلى كافة حكام الإمارات السبعة.

لقد قمت بتصميم جهاز اف ايه ام ئى وهو مشروع فريد وتصور جديد بعون الله وهو جهاز مثل اللمبة السحرية الادين وخلال فترة زمنية قصيرة فإن هذا الجهاز السحري سيزيل كل البؤس من كافة دول منطقة وسيحرر الجميع من أوجه المعاناة التي وقعت على دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي في الفترات السابقة وهذا البنك السحري قد أراده الله لمساعدة الجميع في كسب المال خلال حياتهم دون أن يكون لديهم أي رأسمال وسيجعل هذا الجهاز كل شخص غنياً في العالم العربي وهو يمثل ثورة. وسيحقق العالم العربي رقماً متميزاً في سجل جينيس من خلال نمو الإقتصاد والنجاح الفاعل للفرد وللجميع. يرجى زيارة هذا الموقع لمزيد من التفاصيل

خلال 2000 عاماً الماضية حكم البريطانيين العالم وقام مقاتل الحرية الهندي المهاتما غاندي من خلال قيادة حملات على مستوى الأمة لتخفيف الفقر وتوسيع حقوق المرأة وبناء السلام الديني والعرقي وزيادة الإقتصاد إعتماداً على الذات وفوق كل شئ قام بتحرير الهند من حكم الراجا البريطانيين من خلال نبذ العنف. لقد إتجه غاندي إلى عدم ممارسة العنف والإعتماد على الحقيقة في كل الظروف.

وعلى نحوٍ مماثل لتفكير غاندي وبإرادة الله قمت بتصميم جهاز اف ايه ام ئى. وفي الحلم أمرني الله بالمساهمة بهذا الجهاز مع حكام الإمارات السبعة لأجل رفاهية العالم العربي. إن جهاز اف ايه ام ئى هو جهاز سيحقق ملايين الدولارات لإمارة دبي من السياح والمقيمين وسوف يكون إضافة إلى مجد دبي.
وبالمقابل فإنني ألتمس من سلطات دبي المختصة أن تمنحني العدالة. إنني برئ ومستثمر وقد عانيت الكثير منذ عام 1998. وبهذا المشروع الإبداعي فقد أردت جلب السلام والراحة في كافة أنحاء الإمارات. لقد عشت في دبي لمدة 34 عاماً تقريباً وهي مثل وطني وليس لدي سجل إجرامي طيلة حياتي. لقد إستثمرت كل مدخرات حياتي في هذا المشروع لأجل جلب الراحة والطمأنينة في الحياة اليومية للإنسان لأجل الحصول على الغذاء. إن هناك مهنيون متعلمون يحضرون إلى دبي بحثاً عن الوظيفة وهذا المشروع سيُلبي حاجة ملايين الباحثين عن العمل من ذوي تأشيرات العمل على أساس العمل بالتعاقد والعمل الجزئي وكذلك لأولئك الذين لا يستطيعون العمل لأسباب عديدة فإنه يمكنهم أيضاً العمل من منازلهم وهم مستريحون.

إنني أطلب منكم بتواضع إعادة فتح القضايا المذكورة أدناه والإطلاع على المظالم الناجمة عن الفساد في النظام. ولإزالة ذلك النوع من الممارسات الخاطئة فإنني - بكامل أهليتي – وبرغبتي الحقيقية أود من السلطات الحاكمة في جميع الإمارات السبعة ضبط الممارسات الخاطئة لأجل مصلحة دبي. إنني صادق وقوي وأرغب أن أكافح المظالم التي سببتها بعض البنوك وبعض المحامين ورجال أعمال من الذين إستخفوا بالنظام لشق طريقهم بوسائل غير مبررة.

وعليه ألتمس منحي الفرصة لإثبات نفسي وأرجو منكم إعادة فتح القضايا المذكورة أدناه فيما يتعلق ببنك إستاندرد تشارترد وراج اوف (بسكو إنترناشونال، بسكو انترناشونال ذ.م.م، وكيث إنترناشونال)، البنك التجاري الدولي ومؤسسات قانونية مثل دار العدالة، كلداري وشركائه ودار الحكمة.

إن قلبي يحترق بسبب المظالم التي عانيت منها منذ عام 1998، وقد كان لدي (2) من الأخوان عانوا وماتوا في 1998 – 1999 وبسبب كل هذه الأحكام غير المبررة وإنني عانيت من خسائر تجارية هائلة وكذلك خسائر عديدة كما تعرضت إلى صدمة نفسية.

إن المستثمرين الذين يحضرون إلى دبي يثقون في البنوك ولكن البنوك وبمساعدة الوكلاء تقوم بسرقة المستثمرين لإثبات أن دبي هي جهة غير عادلة وبذا فإنهم يضرون بسلام وسمعة دبي.
في عام 2011 تم إدخالي إلى مستشفى راشد ومستشفى دبي 3 مرات وجميع التقارير الطبية متوفرة لدى المستشفيات المعنية.

لقد كنت في حالة صدمة ومنذ عام 1998 حاولت أن أبذل أفضل ما في وسعي للوصول إلى السلطات المعنية للإبلاغ عن كيف أن بعض الناس يمارسون العمل التجاري ويسببون الضرر لإسم دبي وهذه الأفعال يجب القضاء عليها والاهتمام بها لأجل مصلحة وسلام الناس وقد أرسلت أيضاً إشعار قانوني في عام 2006 و 2008 إلى راج برنارد، دار العدالة، هاريس للتدقيق، البنك المركزي الإماراتي وبنك إستاندرد تشارترد (المملكة المتحدة لندن) بشأن جميع المظالم التي عانيت منها.


بلاغ ضد :

  1. كيه ال راج برنارد (راج) 903/557 مثبت بتقرير تدقيقي حيث أنه خلال غيابي خسر المحامي الخاص بي هذه القضية وعندما كنت موجوداً هنا مع تقرير التدقيق تم حكم عدد (2) قضية أعلاه لصالحي.

  2. قام بنك ستاندرد تشارترد بتقديم قضية زائفة ضدي برقم 1246/99.

  3. البنك التجاري الدولي 827/2000 سحب مبلغ 428 درهم إماراتي تقريباً باسم زوجتي التي لم يكن لها أبداً حق الإمتياز وبدون توقيع من زوجتي .

أرقام القضايا المراد إعادة فتحها

  1. 1246 /99 (المرجع – مفتوحة حتى مستوى المحكمة العليا) و 658/2001 المرجع – مفتوحة ويرجى منح حكم (بنك ستاندرد تشارترد قضيتان وتم أخذ المبلغ مني ووضعوني في معضلة. 658/2001 تم رفض هذه القضية بدون حكم (بنك إستاندرد تشارترد له علاقة).

  2. 557/98 (دايال – وين) راج ضد دايال – حكم برفض القضية لصالح دايال.

183/2000 – حكم لصالحي (إعادة فتح هاتين القضيتين)
ملحوظة : 454/2002 والمحكمة العليا 4787/2002 تم إجازة الطلب خلال شهرين والآن أنا موجود في السجن، وبعد إرسال تقرير التدقيق الخاص بي الذي كان موجوداً أصلاً لدى المحكمة الأقل فإنه لم يتم تقديمه في المحكمة سواء بواسطة مجموعة هاريس أو كيه.كيه.بوث لدار العدالة للإستشارات القانونية. لقد تم إرسال تقرير التدقيق الخاص بي إلى المحكمة قبل 8 أشهر قبل أن يكون لدى المحكمة الأقل كما تم إعطاء وتقديم جميع السجلات خلال الفترة من 1995 إلى 1998 إلى المحكمة الأقل في دبي.

  1. إن القضية المدنية رقم 183/2000 قد أودت بحياة إخواني الإثنين وقام المحامي الخاص بي برفع قضية بمبلغ 10 مليون إلى محكمة دبي طالباً 618.388 درهم إماراتي لصالحي وهذه القضية غير مرتبطة بأي من القضايا أعلاه. لماذا تم رفضها؟ يُرجى إعادة فتح جميع هذه القضايا لأجل العدالة.


  1. أ. تقرير تدقيق الربيعي من 1995 – 1998 جميع الصفقات متضمنة في تقرير التدقيق هذا.

ب. هاريس للتدقيق والمحاسبة بتاريخ 17/2/2002.

ج. إتفاقية رسوم دار العدالة (تقريباً مليون كرسوم مسددة إلى السيد كيه.كيه.بوث) وكان يعمل مع كلداري عندما سلمت القضية له كما تم سداد رسوم إلى كلداري أيضاً قبل 2001 وكذلك مبلغ 50,000 درهم إلى دار الحكمة (العام الماضي).

2- بسكو إنترناشونال ذ.م.م بخطاب مروس بتاريخ 20/10/97 بقائمة سداد من 12 قسط بواسطة الأحواض الجافة (من ترايخ 15/1/98 أوقفت الأحواض الجافة أقساطي.

3-بسكو إنترناشونال ذ.م.م خطاب مروس بتفاصيل الشيكات (دليل جنائي( (شيك ضمان أول مُلغى ولم يتم إعطائي أو إخباري مطلقاً عن ذلك).

My Petition: Complaint against:

  1. K L Raj Bernard ( RAJ ) 903 / 557 proved with my audit report in my absence my lawyer lost this case when I was here with my Audit report I got the 2 above cases in my favor.

  2. Standard Chartered Bank ( SCB ) filing false case against me case no. 1246/99.

  3. CBI ( 827/2000 withdrawal of an FD amount Dhs 428,000 approx. in name of my wife’s which was never under lien, and with no signature of my wife)

Case nos. to re-open:

  1. 1246/99 (RE-open till the Supreme Court) & 658/2001 re-open and please give me judgment (SCB two cases money is taken from me and they have put me in dilemma658/2001 this case was dismissed w/o judgment (SCB involved).

  2. 557/98 (Dayal-win) Raj VS Dayal- case dismissed Judgment in favor of Dayal. 183/2000 –Judgment in my favor ( re-open these 2 cases )

Note: 454/2002 and Supreme Court 4787/2002, within two months order passed and I am in jail today, even after submitting my audit report which was already present in the Lower court was not produced in the court either by Harris Group or K. K. Bose of Dar Al Adallah legal consultants. My audit report was submitted in the court 8 months before in the Lower court. All record from 1995 to 1998 was given and produced in the Lower court of Dubai.

  1. Civil case no. 183/2000 took my 2 brothers lives. My lawyer filed a case for 10millions Dubai court ordered Dhs 618,388 in my favor. This case was not linked to any of the above cases. Why was it dismissed? Please Re-open all these cases for sake of Justice.

my exhibits:

  1. a. al Rubbaie Audit report from 1995 – 1998 all deals listed in this audit report

B. haris auditing & accounting dated 17.2.2002

c. dar al adallah fee agreement (approx. one million fees paid to mr. K. K. bose) he was working with galadhari when i handed over the case to him, paid fees to galadhari too before 2001 and Dhs 50,000 to dar al hekma (last year)

  1. besco international llc. letterhead 20.10.97 payment list of 12 installment via drydocks( from 15.1.98 dry-docks stopped my installments)

  2. besco international llc. letterhead details of cheques ( criminal evidence) ( first Guarantee check is cancelled i was never given and was informed about it, then)

  1. دائرة محاكم دبي، شيك صادر لصالح دايال "بنك دبي الوطني" بمبلغ 223,796 درهم إماراتي.

  2. بسكو إنترناشونال ذ.م.م، خطاب مروس بتاريخ 20/1/1998 وقد استلم راج قسطاً من دايال للتأمين لأجل لتغطية أضرار الخليج بمبلغ 1,408,124 درهم إماراتي.

  3. بسكو إنترناشونال ذ.م.م خطاب مروس مؤرخ.

  4. عدد (2) شيكات ضمان من بنك إستاندرد تشارترد صادرة بواسطة راج برنارد ومضمونة بواسطة موظفي بنك إستاندرد تشارترد مع مذكرة رد.

  5. نسخة من الحكم بتاريخ 29/9/2011.

  6. تقارير طبية من المستشفى برقم هوية 7611331 من مستشفى دبي، إجراء عملية، المستشفى الهندي والاسترالي (تم إرفاق التقارير).

  7. في الجلسة السماعية الأولى طلبت القضية برقم أمر 557/98.

الجزء ب : بنك ستاندرد تشارترد

  1. بخطاب مروس من بنك إستاندرد تشارترد بتاريخ 5/8/98 يؤكد إصدار عدد (2) شيكات ضمان بنكية لصالحي.

  2. إلى النيابة العامة بشرطة الرفاعة – بتاريخ 25/4/99 مرجع الخطاب رقم 19/5412 وهذا الخطاب يؤكد البلاغ الجنائي لبنك إستاندرد تشارترد باسم دايال وأن الشيك قد خضع لتعديل قانوني بواسطة عدد (2) موظف من بند إستاندرد تشارترد وراج.

  3. من قيادة شرطة دبي إلى شرطة الرفاعة بتاريخ 10/1/99.

  4. بنك الإمارات المركزي.

  5. محكمة العدالة (رقم القضية 658/2001.

  6. خطاب من بنك المشرق بتاريخ 17/10/98 إلى دايال.

  7. خطاب بنك المشرق (إخطار شرطة الرفاعة بحجز جواز سفري بسبب الشيك رقم 404976 (وهذا البلاغ لم يتم تقديمه بواسطة أي شخص. وكذلك تم تقديم خطاب بتاريخ 5/8/98 من بنك إستاندرد تشارترد إلى الرفاعة لرفع قضية لإدراج قضية لم تحدث في أو قبل 5/8/98 وتم مساندته بكافة السلطات الحاكمة بدبي مما دمر حياتي كلها ومنذ تاريخه وحتى الآن لم يتم تحقيق العدالة).

دليل إضافي :

  1. شهادة وفاة الأخوين.

  2. نسخة مكبرة للشيك بتاريخ 1998.

  3. نسخة من الرخصة التجارية لشركة بسكو إنترناشونال مع الكفيل المحلي الملا.

  1. Dubai court’s dept. check issued in favor of Dayal of “the national bank of Dubai” for an amount of Dhs 223,796.

  2. besco international llc. letterhead 20.1.98 raj received premium from Dayal FOR TERM-insurance to COVER GULF damages an amount of Dhs 1,408,124.

  3. besco intl. llc. letterhead dated.

  4. two scb bank guarantee cheques issued by raj bernard and guaranteed by two scb officers, with return memo’s.

  5. Judgment copy dated 29.9.2011

  6. medical reports Hospital id no. 7611331 FROM Dubai hospital, bypass-operation- India and australian hospital (INSERTED stent).

  7. in first hearing i requested for order case no. 557/98.

part b: scb.

  1. in the letterhead of standard chartered bank dated 5.8.98 CONFIRMS 2 bank guarantee checks issued in my favor

  2. rafaa to police public prosecution – dated 25.4.99 letter ref. no. 19/5412. this letter confirms scb criminal complaint on Dayal’s name and the cheque had legal alteration – by scb’s two officers and raj

  3. Dubai police head quarter to rafaa police dated 10.1.99

  4. central bank of uae

  5. government of justice ( case no. 658/2001)

  6. mashreq bank letter dated 17.10.98 to Dayal.

  7. mashreq bank letter ( rafaa police notification for custody of my passport for chq. no. 404976. (THIS complaint was never filed by anyone instead note the letter dated 5.8.98 of scb to rafaa to file a case for an event that did not take place on or before 5.8.98 and was supported by all Dubai governing authorities that ruined my whole life. since that day until today justice is not given)


  1. 2 brothers death certificate

  2. enlarged copy of the cheque showing 1998

  3. besco intl. trade license copy with local sponsor al mullah

  1. المحامي الخاص بالخليج للمحاماة والإستشارات القانونية – ملحوظة مهمة : لم أقم بتقديم اية قضية بشأن الشيك رقم 404977 وهذا فقط إشعار من المحامين الخاصين بي.

  2. الحكم بتاريخ 29/9/2011 .

ملحوظة : ذكر موظف بنك إستاندرد تشارترد أنه منذ عام 1992 فإن القوانين المصرفية قد تغيرت وبدلاً عن إصدار الشيك تقوم البنوك بإعطاء ضمان على ورق الترويسة فكيف قام بنك إستاندرد تشارترد بإصدار هذه الشيكات؟ كيف إستطاع راج الحصول على عدد (2) شيكات ضمان مصرفية من بنك إستاندرد تشارترد؟ لماذا قام عدد (2) موظفي من بنك إستاندرد تشارترد بإعطاء ذلك الضمان؟ هل هذا تآمر من راج برنارد وعدد (2) موظفي بنك إستاندرد تشارترد؟؟.
الجزء أ – راج برنارد / بسكو إنترناشونال/بسكو إنترناشونال ذ.م.م /كيث إنترناشونال :

  1. مستند رقم 2 : يذكر خطاب الترويسة لراج برنارد عدد 12 قسط يتم سدادها إلى دايال مانسوخاني بواسطة الأحواض الجافة بدبي وإذا لم يقم بالسداد فإنه سيدفع 10% من نصيب الأرباح. ومن 1998 وحتى اليوم لم يقم بسداد الفائدة أو نصيب الأرباح.

  2. المستند رقم 3 : خطاب الترويسة لشركة بسكو إنترناشونال ذ.م.م بتاريخ 19/1/98، رسالة فاكس، تم إدراج 15 شيك بمبلغ إجمالي 1,500.000 تقريباً وجميعها إرتدت وحتى تاريخه لم يتم سدادها وهذا يُثبت بأنه مجرم وحتى شيكات بنك إستاندرد تشارترد لم يتم سدادها وهذا الدليل يُثبت أيضأً بأنه قد أعطاني شيك في عام 1998.

  1. مستند رقم 5 : خطاب مروس لشركة بسكو إنترناشونال ذ.م.م مكتوب وموقع بواسطة المحاسب هاري ويعترف راج بدفعات مالية قدرها 1,408.124 درهم إمارتي من دايال تم إستلامها خلال فترة 9 أشهر من تاريخ 1 مارس 1997 إلى 20 يناير 1998. ولتحصيل التأمين لأجل ضد تغطية الخسائر إن وجدت في دول منطقة الخليج العربي خلال 15 عاماً فإنني قد شعرت بالخوف من الأزمة المالية بسبب الحرب في عام 1999 بين الكويت والعراق عندما كنا أجانب عانينا الخسائر وكنا خائفين من سوء الظن غير المعروف. لقد كنت استثمر بشكل أساسي في المعاملات التجارية مع الشركات في البحرين و\لأحواض الجافة بدبي الخ ولهذا فقد قمت بتغطية هذا التأمين مثل راج الذي كان وكيلاُ كما تم إخباري بأن الشريك المحلي لبنك إستاندرد تشارترد وشركة بسكو المحلية هما نفس الشئ وأنه قد تم إصدار 3 شيكات ضمان مصرفي وعدد 12 شيك مؤجل إلى راج وهذا جعلني أعتقد بأن الأمر حقيقي. لقد كانت خطط بنك إستاندرد تشارترد وراج هو أن تفقد دولة الإمارات العربية السمعة. إن بسكو إنترناشونال خلال الفترة من 1997 وحتى تاريخ وجودها وفي حالة فحصها في سجلات العمل فإنه يمكن معرفة عدد التأشيرات التي تم إصدارها وبسبب عدم سداد مرتبات العاملين فِإن الشركة قد أفلست وعانى عاملوها بشدة.

ملحوظة :

  1. إن راج برنارد المديرالعام لشركة بسكو إنترناشونال خلال الفترة 1995 – يوليو 1997 كان وقتها موظف محترم لدى الملا ومواطن بإمارة عجمان وهذه الشركة تغيرت إلى بسكو إنترناشونال ذ.م.م في يوليو 1997 وبعد أغسطس 1997 لم يقم راج بإصدار شيكات باسم الشركة السابقة ولكنه في يناير عام 1998 قام بإصدار 14 شيك وغش شركة عجمان المحلية وقد إرتدت جميع تلك الشيكات.

  2. قام بنك إستاندرد تشارترد بالتصديق على شيكين وكان الملا حينها الشريك المحلي لبنك إستاندرد تشارترد عندما أعطاني راج تلك الشيكات المتعلقة ببنك إستاندرد تشارترد. لماذا وكيف حصل على هذه الشيكات المصدقة؟ (مطلوب إجراء تحقيق).

المستند رقم 1 : يوضح تقرير مدققي الربيعي بتاريخ 21/4/98 جميع سجلات دفعاتي المالية من 1995 إلى 1998 وكانت هذه تعاملات تجارية مع بسكو إنترناشونال وقد قام راج برفع قضية خطأ ضد دايال برقم 903/98 يطالب فيها بأنه كان يستلم فائدة وهذه القضية أثبتت بأنني كنت أقوم بتمويل الشركة وكان يقوم

  1. my lawyer al – khaleej advocates & legal consultant – important note: i had not filed any case for chq. no. 404977 just my lawyers notice

  2. Judgement dated 29.9.2011

Note: a scb officer even SAID; since 1992 the banking LAWS HAD changed instead of issuance of a cheque banks were to give guarantee on letterhead then, how did SCB issue these cheques? how did raj manage to get two bank guarantee cheques from scb? why did scb 2 officers do give such guarantee? plotting of raj bernard and two scb officers??

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət