Affidavit I am uneducated My 14 years research and actual experience with100% evidences
|
|  Yüklə 7.12 Mb.
|
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? CRIME PLAYS WITH BRIBE LAW U A E? 100% EVIDENCE WITH PICTURE 
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 settlements OR JUSTIC HELP EXPOSING GENERAL PUBLIC THROUGH PRINT MEDIA, TV MEDIA AND OTHER MEDIA settle the matter. 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. THESE IMPORTANTS LINKS WITH EVIDENCE MAY BE HACKED OR CLOSED BY HACKERS OR BY GOVTS. 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.
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.
Date: 26th July 2006 Standard Chartered Bank, Legal and Compliance, UK &Europe CRIME PLAYS WITH BRIBE LAW U A E? 100% EVIDENCE WITH PICTURE Sub: Complaint against your Dubai branch office about supporting and shielding criminal activities against general public. From:
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 customer.feedback@hk.standardchartered.com 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:-
WITHOUT HELP OF LAW, NOTHING IS POSSIBLE BUT IF U A E ’S LAW COURT MINISTER SUPPORTS CRIME THEN HOW WILL THERE BE JUSTICE IN THAT U A E CRIMINAL FREE .INVESTOR JAIL CASES 2198/012,1246/99,1555/012? 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:
CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES: 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:
If you still fail to act in the matter, I shall take following measures against 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.
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 www.fame.ae 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
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.
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 www.fame.ae. 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.
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. إلتماسي بلاغ ضد :
أرقام القضايا المراد إعادة فتحها
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.
مستنداتي
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:
Case nos. to re-open:
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.
my exhibits:
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)
الجزء ب : بنك ستاندرد تشارترد
دليل إضافي :
part b: scb.
extra EVIDENCE:
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 :
ملحوظة :
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
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?? |
