POCAhontas 2002

By 10 March 2017KEY ARTICLES

POCAhontas 2002 (±x)

Published on 10th March 2017

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM

Enter more text here

Just like the long-haired bird in the cartoon above, I was asking my local tree about ‘my path and how am I ever going to find it’. The tree responded that I should ‘listen to everything around me… and that will guide me… and that I should listen with my heart’. As the tree started singing I decided to ‘leave’ at that point 🙂

The tree was asking me to use Technical Surveillance Counter Measures and Forensic Analysis and to listen to my heart. As that is ridiculously painful these days it is getting to the stage that I need to collapse the current case.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ‘POCA’

“Money laundering” is “the process by which the proceeds of crime are converted into assets which appear to have a legitimate origin, so that they can be retained permanently or recycled into further criminal enterprises”.

Money Laundering offences apply to businesses and individuals in business where they operate in within the regulated sector.

Money laundering was first criminalised in the United Kingdom in relation to the proceeds of drug trafficking (DTOA 1986). Further drug money laundering offences were subsequently created (DTA 1994), together with separate offences relating to the proceeds of other criminal conduct (CJA 1988) and terrorist funds (Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989).

The three principal money laundering offences (ss.327-329) replace the parallel drug and non-drug crime money laundering offences with single offences that do not distinguish between the proceeds of drug trafficking and the proceeds of other crimes.

The prosecution have to prove that a person charged with an offence knew or suspected that ‘criminal property’came from ‘ criminal conduct.’

Essential Issues

(a) all criminality is denied, due to the nature of my work past and present;

(b) perversion of the course of justice by my own attorneys together with the fact that Brown and/or his agents and Harry Elias (lawyers for ANZ) are involved in the current frauds against me impacts upon their ability to execute their [fraudulently-obtained] judgments;

(c) the deliberate destruction of evidence by agents acting on behalf of HMRC has messed up the case for them irretrievably. Such evidence includes but is not limited to partially redacted immunity agreements as well as accounting/legal materials and other evidence of unlawful and/or harassment surveillance from 2015.

Awkward Attorneys

As I have mentioned, my attorneys have been interfered with and are trying their best to cause damage by allowing fraudulently-obtained judgments (David Brown and ANZ Bank) to remain unchallenged. This is obvious and the attorneys have no defence to that.

The reason that it is being done is that they have been advised that I am a criminal and ahead of perhaps a ‘Private Prosecution’, the investigation of assets with a view to freezing, is occurring.

Given the fact that I ALREADY KNOW that which is going on, then any party discussing such matters with me cannot be in a position in which they are ‘likely to prejudice any investigation’.

Specific Sections of POCA 2002

333 Tipping Off

342 Offences of prejudicing investigation

I know what a Mareva Injunction is and given that which has been in place in 2009 the phrase ‘Malteser Injunction’ is more appropriate 🙂

And as I know what fraudulent conveyance is, I have taken no steps in this regard. There is no reason for me to do so because I will not be losing the case and there are no issues with my personal asset position or that of any Rhodium entity.

In fact, subject to legal advice, I see no issues in allowing a voluntary freezing to enable the directly-related matters of perversion of the course of justice by the parties concerned to be fully ventilated first – and there are PLENTY of those!


I would be more than happy to disclose information in a controlled manner, subject to legal counsel – period. I also need to know the accounting position myself obviously.

But thanks to Ray Callingham and Kim Worrall and their HMRC form stunt, and disappearing after two days rather than staying for four which they promised when the flights were booked, the accounting materials were not scanned. If they had been scanned we would have their benefit now. Or are they safe somewhere – ha ha!

Then the further frauds of Edward de Saram (“EDS”) and Praxy de Saram (“PDS) in which their unlawful acts facilitated and/or resulted in the theft and/or destruction of my accounting materials and evidence.

Given the fact that forensic evidence demonstrates that EDS specifically instructed Francis Perera to destroy evidence as well as confirmed to him how valuable my items were:-

It is not rocket science as to who is actually behind this fraud! Given that EDS and PDS were involved in Rhodium PLC then I would infer that they are [foolishly] trying to evade criminal culpability by throwing me under a bus. However there was no criminal culpability to evade which is their and the investigators’ flawed conclusion 🙂


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM