Trustees invariably hide behind ’shields’ or corporations, using their big name as a distraction such as with the case of BAKER TILLY and their seven separate companies, yet no-one quite knows or even understands the exact workings of the relationship between the Trustee and the corporation he presents through. The wording of Insolvency Law is hideously over-complicated. Here is a description written by a colleague recently to describe his experience of Insolvency Law:

My friend writes:

“I am currently doing a direction for someone to apply for voluntary bankruptcy, one might think this is relatively easy. I have two volumes of Muir Hunter on Personal Insolvency, cost £750+. You have a table of statutory instruments that means very little, then you get into the meat which starts at part lll of the Insolvency Act 1986 (as amended), but the index starts at part Vlll?

“Then you have two and a half pages headed part lll, then it jumps to part Vlll but the paragraph numbers are shown as 3-23.1 as an example, with the added confusion of section numbers like 252 which have subsections (1)……and (a) etc in that subsection you get a reference to another section like 273 below which is another 60 pages on.

“You then look at the header on the page that 273 is on and what do you see? “Part lll – Insolvency Act 1986″, but when we in section 252 it said it was Part Vlll, so why does part Vlll come before part lll? To make it even more confusing section 273 makes reference to section 258 in Part Vlll. And yet the paragraph that starts off section 273 is “3-458″ and the paragraph that starts off section 252 is “3-22″.

“Don’t even bother trying to understand the “Amendments” e.g. Section 55 (now where did section 55 suddenly spring from when the first section is 252?), it reads: In subsection (5), for “subsection (3) of section 540 of the Companies Act (so now we have to go find another tome) substitute section 168(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986.”

Any the wiser? Deliberate obfuscation? The Trustee recently admitted there were “defects” in the Insolvency and pulled a rabbit out of the hat as to the “remedy”, namely a non-existent clause that nullified the Insolvency Law that was written in the first instance! Make any sense? Nope. But then that’s exactly how these so-called ‘professionals’ like it.

More billions are laundered through our courts than we could ever imagine. Their time is up. It’s wake-up call time. The MPs expenses scandal will pale into insignificance once the lid is lifted on this scandal.