Tag archives for Credit Select Series 4

Rothschild’s Steve Dewsnip in Court over Alleged Sexual Assault

Share

NINTCHDBPICT000282992624

Steve Dewsnip, who once dedicated to his professional life to sign up over one hundred property-grabbing Rothschild Credit Select Series Mortgage Loans, is now being tried for bum-grabbing.

Read further on the following links:

Evening Standard

The Sun

And also on International-Adviser.com:

Ex-Providence director in court over alleged sexual assault

By Monira Matin

Added 17th November 2016

Steve Dewsnip, one of the former directors of the collapsed Guernsey-based Providence Investments Funds, has appeared in court in London accused of sexual assault.

The 49-year-old allegedly fondled a young waitress’s bottom in an exclusive Wembley Stadium suite after an England football match, Harrow crown court heard on Thursday reported The Evening Standard.

Dewsnip, of Castel, Guernsey, pulled the woman towards him, put one arm around her and groped her as she collected glasses following the match in September last year, the jury was told.

“He reached an arm out behind me, pulled me towards him and fondled my bum.

“He pulled me right up next to him and continued with the conversation and did not acknowledge what was happening.

“I felt unable to protest. I was working and we have to be polite and I tried not to make contact with him. It’s very hard to know how to react,” the alleged victim, a full-time student from London, told the jury.

Dewsnip, the founder and ex-chairman of Guernsey FC, was arrested when he returned to the same suite for an England v France friendly international a month later.

He pleaded not guilty and denied the allegation, adding that he had no recollection of touching anyone’s bottom, even accidentally.

The trial continues.

Collapsed Providence funds

Dewsnip resigned from his position as director at Providence in early August just weeks before Guernsey Financial Services Commission (GFSC) ordered the stricken fund to be wound up, deeming it insolvent.

In a further twist, Jersey’s financial services regulator shut down local IFA firm Lumiere Wealth,after an investigation into the sale of Providence Investment Funds to its clients.

As a result, Lumiere Wealth’s founder and managing director, Christopher Byrne was arrested in October, charged with a ÂŁ1m ($1.2m, €1.1m) fraud linked to the funds.

In September, Providence Global, a majority owner of Lumiere, also came under fire for its links with Miami-based Providence Financial Investments for defrauding investors out of $64m.

In the same month, a group of British expats named Dewsnip in a lawsuit against NM Rothschild over a Spanish property scheme which allowed them to take out mortgage worth up to 75% of the value of their homes. 

 

Pretrial hearing vs. Rothschild held in Malaga

Share

PalacioJusticiaClaimants in the equity release CreditSelect 4-Series loan case against N.M. Rothschild & Sons and their respective lawyers held a case management hearing, or pre-trial hearing, at the Mercantile Courts in Malaga.

The hearing lasted for a about 1 hour, inclusive of a short recess demanded by the Judge to consult case law on a specific point of law.

The purpose of this meeting was to narrow the issues involved in the case, set deadlines for providing clarification documents, conducting discovery and listing the witnesses who will be attending the hearing.

Rothschild lawyers unsuccessfully attempted to adjourn the hearing on grounds that one of the claimants had passed away, a petition outright rejected by the Judge. They also tried to file the following objections:

  1. Wrong identification of the companies offering the advertising and the mortgage loans, which they claim are different (Rothschild Bank International and NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd.) The court rejected this as being a matter to be decided on passing judgement, given that she had read the merits of the case and she did not in principle agree with Rothschild’s lawyers.
  2. Claim filed out of time, which they claim had had to be filed at the very latest in 2010. This was also swiftly not attended by the Court on grounds that it would be dealt with on passing judgement.

On the part of the claimants, lawyers submitted a list of proposed witnesses for the hearing that were all accepted, inclusive of the Baron David Rothschild.

On the whole, the prevalent feeling was the Judge was sympathetic to the claimant’s arguments which is positive.

The negative note relates to the date of the trial which lawyers for claimants find totally shocking yet, unfortunately, cannot be altered: 12th of November 2019.

Claimants not part of this case are not bound by this incredibly protracted timeline and are able to file legal separate actions for miselling/misrepresentation in the -hopefully- quicker Courts of First Instance.

On a different note, a crew from France2 television were present at the event and interviewed some of the victims. They were unsuccessful in getting any responses from Rothschild’s unfriendly lawyers who do not forgive the audacious ‘ambush’ on Mr. Steve Dewsnip who, in spite of being sought after a Criminal Court in Denia, had managed to stay ‘at large’ for years, even travelling freely to Spain to assist Rothschild in their cases against victims.

 

 

Marbella Court orders Stephen Dewsnip to give an address for summons

Share

Steve Dewsnip has been formally ordered by the Marbella Courts to provide an address for summons, as petitioned by a Denia Court via a Search Warrant.

Mr. Dewsnip, who is ‘disappeared’ for the Denia Court where proceedings are currently underway against himself, Baron David de Rothschild and Mark Coutanche, is nonetheless alive and contactable when required to turn up in Marbella to testify tin favour of his old bosses, N.M. Rothschild & Sons, on other cases brought against the latter company.

As it happens, lawyers acting for ERVA turned up at the Marbella Court and requested the Guardia Civil, whom were handed  the document that is currently visible on this site, to warn the Judge -presiding over a case brought by victims of Rothschild- that Mr. Dewsnip was listed as a witness for the Guernsey-based bank.

So what exactly happened later is uncertain, as ERVA lawyers were not present, but it appears that when Mr. Dewsnip went in to the Court the Judge asked him not to leave straight after finishing his deposition as he had to be notified of a summons from a criminal Court.

Rothschild lawyers were needless to say outraged and were looking for those to blame for what they deemed underhand and disloyal tactics.

Meanwhile, we are eagerly waiting for news on Mr. Rothschild interrogation at the appropriate French Courts.

Rothschild Criminal Case: Denia Court Urges Benidorm Translation Services

Share

Denia Court number 1 has issued a note urging the Benidorm Translation Services (Servicio de Traducciones de Benidorm) to speed up the international rogatory letter translation, into French.

At the same time, the State Prosecutor has requested from the  Court that investigation proceedings are declared as “complex”, a description that give the Courts -under recently approved procedural regulations- 18 months to conclude the investigation and either drop charges or, where the evidence is sufficient, proceed with trial stage.

Rothschild Denies Responsibility Over Equity Release

Share

Claire Whittet

Attempts by MP Huw Irranca-Davies to seek a plausible explanation as to the purpose of the Credit Select tax-evasion facility, and the effects it has had on purchasers of this mortgage/financial scheme, has been met with indifference by an ubiquitous Claire Whittet, from Rothschild. The below email was sent to ERVA from the office of MP Huw Irranca-Davies, together with Rothschild`s formal answer:

Further to a recent meeting between representatives of Rothschild and Huw Irranca-Davies MP, the following letter was received. (attached)

Rothschild have agreed that this can be publicly circulated, so I have posted this on the ERVA site and Huw hopes it may be useful.(hopefully tomorrow/Friday)

Huw Irranca-Davies reiterates that he cannot – for reasons of parliamentary protocol and resources – enter into individual correspondence with individuals other than his own constituents. Where individuals have a direct or clear familial link with a UK parliamentary constituency you may want to approach the relevant Member of Parliament for that constituency. Huw is happy to discuss the issues with any other M.P’s and to collaborate where appropriate.

Credit Select Series 4: Rothschild could see tens of millions wiped off

Share

Rothschild Bank International

 

Back in 2008, the Supreme Court in Spain ruled on an interesting case: a Spanish Casino had been lending money to some gamblers (by the way, what a silly thing to do) to bet in their premises. As was expected, the gamblers p****d the money up the wall and refused to return it. The Casino, on the strength of the contract they had made their clients sign, demanded payment of the lent sums, plus interest.

The Supreme Court, in application of the established doctrine that states that contracts that breach mandatory provisions are void, declared the contract unenforceable and dismissed the Casino’s attempts to obtain an order forcing the gambler to return the funds.

The provision that had been violated specifically banned Casino’s from lending money to customers, for the purpose of gambling.

In reaching the decision, the Supreme Court stated that even if administrative laws envisage a penalty for breaches of their own laws, such trangression necessarily has an effect on the validity of the contract, which has to be declare void.

By applying this to Equity Release, it is very possible that where the ER package is declared void, claimants will not only have the right to remove the charge attached to their properties but also, claim the loan that was given to them to invest.

What remains to be seen is whether Courts of law will take into consideration breaches in regulatory mandatory provisions, where these exist  (SLMH, Nykredit/Sydbank, International Property Finance Spain etc.), and apply article 1.306.2, or the tax benefit that was the main objective pursued by the contract.

In the first scenario, an Equity Release victim would be able to remove the mortgage charge from their property and claim the full loan back, before costs, losses etc., and in the second, remove the mortgage and demand the remaining balance on the loan. In both scenarios, the bank could lose tens of millions if the Courts apply, as would be expected, the following article:

Article 1.306:

If the deed which constitutes the unlawful cause should not constitute a crime or misdemeanour, the following rules shall be observed:

1. Where both contracting parties are at fault, none of them may recover what he has given pursuant to the contract, or claim the performance of what the other should have offered.

2. Where only one contracting party is at fault, he may not recover what he has given pursuant to the contract, or demand the performance of what he should have been offered. The other, who was a stranger to the unlawful cause, may claim what he has given, without the obligation to perform what he should have offered.

Ladies and Gentlemen, place your bets!!

Skip to toolbar