THE WORST CASE OF POLICE CORRUPTION IN BRITISH HISTORY?

“THAT PARTICULARLY DUBIOUS CONSTABULARY MERITS CAREFUL INVESTIGATION”  (Lord Maginnis of Drumglass referring to North Yorkshire Police and their handling of the Hofschröer fraud and abuse case)

“CORRUPTION AMONGST POLICE FORCES THE LENGTH OF THIS COUNTRY……SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION FROM A SECTION OF THE POLICE AT ALL LEVELS IN THE OPERATION OF ALL TYPES OF CRIME AND INVOLVING OFFICERS FROM PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS”  (Professor John Laird, Baron Laird FRSA of Artigarvan referring generally to the problem of police corruption)

For reasons which will become obvious, we thought we would start this article with two recent quotes from parliamentarians on the problem of police corruption.  In this article we will reveal the corrupt police officers that organized a major international criminal fraud against a defenceless old age pensioner Mrs Barbara Hofschröer, who is an eighty-three year-old, confused and ill veteran of the Second World War.  To do this we need to start with a quick look at the law relating to fraud.

The Law pertaining to Fraud since 2007

As a result of the expansion of home ownership in the eighties and the increase in house prices, old people now often live in a home which is actually a very valuable asset and consequently a new type of fraud has become prevalent in the UK where old, confused pensioners are persuaded to sign their homes over to relatives, friends, carers, social workers and even doctors, on the basis that they will always be able to live there, but should sign over to evade death duties, local authority charges, in return for care or some other service that is never delivered or some other bogus reason.  Having been defrauded of their homes, typically they are then moved out to a relative or old people’s home, their house is sold off utilizing an immediate capital gain for the new owner and the pensioner is abandoned.

This type of elder abuse has become more common in the UK and to deal with it parliament passed the Fraud Act 2006, which was specifically worded to cover this type of offence by carers and members of the family etc by creating a new offence of Fraud by Abuse of Position (Section 4).  The Home Office guidance for applying the new act specifically states that it covers a situation where a person acts in the role of carer. The Law Commission also drew attention to this with regard to abuse of position “The necessary relationship will be present within …..a family, or in the context of voluntary work, or in any context where the parties are not at arms length”.  North Yorkshire Police Force Policy on the protection of elderly adults is that this constitutes financial abuse of a vulnerable adult and this remains the case when the abuser is a carer and/or related to the victim. The new act established two tests to prove fraud.  These are:

1.      If a person behaves dishonestly.

And

2.      Either that person makes a gain, or another person makes a loss.

An offence of fraud has been committed.

This then brings us to the Hofschröer Case.

The initial property fraud by Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer and attempt to obtain Paul & Barbara Hofschröer’s savings

Paul and Barbara Hofschröer married just after the Second World War and lived happily in London and York.  They had a loving marriage and two children, Peter and Robert.  Peter went on to be an accomplished linguist and published historian specializing in the Napoleonic Wars and lived in Austria.  Robert stayed in York, married Shirley, they had two children Diane and Martin and he went on to work for a City of York Council funded charity.  Because he lived in York and Peter lived in Austria, Robert became the carer of Paul and Barbara in their old age.

While Barbara Hofschröer’s son Robert Hofschröer was responsible for the care of Barbara and her husband Paul, he deceived Barbara and Paul into signing over their house 50% to him, and 50% his son Martin and daughter Diane (to be held in trust for Barbara’s other son Peter), on the basis that Robert, Diane and Martin would be responsible for the care of Paul and Barbara into their old age.  In a separate fraud, they also deceived Peter into signing his house in Austria over to Diane and Martin.

However, as soon as Paul and Barbara Hofschröer started to decline and became seriously ill, Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer (having secured control of all the family property) abandoned them, only pausing to make demands for Paul and Barbara Hofschröer to hand over their life savings to them which were a considerable sum of money.

North Yorkshire Police Policy on the abuse of elderly adults is contained in the North Yorkshire Safeguarding Policy and is that this constitutes financial abuse and this remains the case when the abuser is a carer and/or related to the victim. It is therefore clear that the transfer of the house meets the two tests established by the Fraud Act 2006 which are that:

1.      By promising to provide care in return for the transfer of the property and then abandoning Paul and Barbara as soon as they could, Robert, Diane and Martin acted dishonestly.

2.     By acting dishonestly they made a financial gain, namely control of the Paul and Barbara’s house.

Clearly a classic case of Fraud by Abuse of Position in which Paul and Barbara had been deceived into signing over their home to their son and his children for nothing.  It gets worse.

Peter returns to York from Austria

At that point, their elder son Peter came to the rescue.  Concerned that they were not being cared for adequately, he returned to York and became their full time carer.  According to numerous witnesses including her doctor, Peter Hofschröer was a very good carer of Paul and Barbara and nursed them back to health after the neglect they had suffered whilst being cared for by Robert Hofschröer.  Following continued aggressive demands by Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer for Paul and Barbara’s savings (which were held in a joint account) to be transferred to them, Barbara and Peter Hofschröer became concerned that Paul Hofschröer could be deceived into signing a transfer document thereby losing control over their savings.  He obtained power of attorney to prevent this, with Paul and Barbara’s consent, thereby giving him control over their finances and protecting his parents savings.

Robert, Martin and Diane Hofschröer then alleged that Peter Hofschröer had stolen Paul and Barbara Hofschröer’s savings.  In a most commendable investigation, PC 1827 Farrington of North Yorkshire Police confirmed that there was no evidence of fraud, abuse or neglect and that Mrs Hofschröer was clean and in good order, happy in Peter’s care and happy with his management of her finances. WPC Farrington’s conclusions have subsequently been confirmed by the Austrian Police, her doctor and her solicitor.  By this time, Paul and Barbara had become estranged from their son Robert and his family.

ENTER INSPECTOR MORIARTY

How Inspector Colin Moreton (“Moriarty”) of North Yorkshire Police conspired with Robert Hofschröer to defraud Peter, Barbara and Paul Hofschröer of their homes in a half million international fraud in five easy steps.

1.     Perversion of the joint Police and Social Services safeguarding investigation

Peter made a complaint to the Council and asked them to convene a joint North Yorkshire Police and City of York Council safeguarding investigation into the conduct of Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer towards his mother and father, alleging fraud and abuse, which as we have seen above was clear and established.

Inspector Colin Moreton from Fulford Road Police Station, York contravened force policy and withheld the investigation of the allegations from the specialist Protecting Vulnerable Adults Unit and ensured that he become case officer in the Hofschröer Case.

He then protected Robert Hofschröer by withholding all the evidence of fraud and abuse from the joint North Yorkshire Police and City of York Council safeguarding investigation and stated to the investigation that Robert Hofschröer was the legal owner of the house, which was untrue, to ensure that he was not arrested or hindered in any way in his attempts to seize the house belonging to Mrs Hofschröer.

Paul Hofschröer subsequently died.  On the day that he died, according to Police evidence, Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer entered Barbara’s home against her will and shouted and screamed abuse at her, after Robert had assaulted her.  This was the last time they spoke to her. Robert threatened to kill her, then stalked her for months. She now lives in fear of her life.

2.      Threat to arrest Peter should he return to the UK based on concocted evidence to keep Peter and Barbara in Austria leaving the house in York empty

While Mrs Hofschröer was on holiday in Austria with her devoted son and full time carer Peter, she was taken ill and was not well enough to travel and return to York.

According to e-mails from the Police, Inspector Moreton had police enquiries made with neighbours on behalf of Robert Hofschröer to confirm Mrs Hofschröer was in Austria and her home was empty.  He then confirmed the house was empty to Robert Hofschröer and e mailed Peter Hofschröer in Austria attaching an unsigned and undated letter on North Yorkshire Police headed paper threatening to arrest Peter Hofschröer, if he should return to the UK for harassing one Mark Bednarski (a social worker of whom more elsewhere on this blog) by sending him offensive e-mails and “literature”.

Peter knew Mr Bednarski because he had made a complaint about him to City of York Council which had been upheld.  However, he had never e-mailed him in his personal capacity or sent him any “literature”.  He was perplexed and e-mailed Inspector Moreton asking him what the “literature” was and to provide the e-mails.  His request was ignored.  He realized that if he went back to York he would probably be arrested and this could mean that he would lose power of attorney over his mother to her estranged son Robert leaving her vulnerable again to abuse and neglect.

Dozens of requests have been made to North Yorkshire Police to see these alleged e-mails without success.  According to Commissioner Long of the IPCC, the e-mails were sent to Mr Bednarski in his capacity as a York social worker, so are the property of York Council and relate to the complaint Peter made, which was in fact upheld and was an entirely lawful action, which cannot be used as evidence of a crime.  The Chief Constable is obviously withholding them because the alleged e-mails either do not exist or are stolen property and are therefore inadmissible as evidence of a crime and releasing them will prove that Inspector Moreton corruptly concocted evidence to justify falsely and maliciously threatening to arrest Peter Hofschröer.

After eighteen months of requesting sight of the “literature”, the IPCC provided a copy of a leaflet which they allege Peter Hofschröer distributed about Mr Bednarski.  Peter Hofschröer denies ever seeing this leaflet before and alleges it is in fact a forged document.  Neither the police, the IPCC or Mr Bednarski can say how this document came into their possession or how it is connected to Peter Hofschröer, it does not in fact make any unfair or inaccurate remarks about Mr Bednarski, Mr Hofschröer is within his right of free speech to make them and it does not constitute an offence.

In short, the written threat to arrest Peter Hofschröer issued by Inspector Moreton is concocted and completely without substance and the Chief Constable must know this.  However, he still will not withdraw the threat to arrest Peter Hofschröer on his return to the UK, say how Inspector Moreton obtained the leaflet or provide the e-mails.

3.      Seizure and attempt to fraudulently sell Mrs Hofschröer’s home

Having received confirmation from Inspector Moreton that the house was empty, on 22nd February 2010, Robert and Martin Hofschröer entered Barbara Hofschröer’s home, changed the locks and withheld a key from Robert’s mother and Martin’s grandmother, thus making her homeless.

The same day, the Police Crime Log records state they were observed by neighbours removing Barbara’s property from the house as they started to clear it for sale.  The neighbours dialed 999 and asked for the police and when they arrived officers under the command of Inspector Moreton looked on and just watched, and did not arrest Robert and Martin for theft.

On the same day that Robert and Martin Hofschröer seized Mrs Hofschröer’s home and locked her out, Inspector Moreton telephoned the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) at the request of Robert Hofschröer in what was clearly a coordinated pre-planned joint operation and alleged that Peter Hofschröer had abused his mother and transferred funds to himself, (the same false allegations that had been investigated by WPC Farringdon eighteen months earlier and which he knew was found to be false) to justify the OPG removing Peter Hofschröer’s (the man that was a devoted carer of Barbara Hofschröer) Powers of Attorney and passing them to Robert Hofschröer (the man that had locked her out, stolen her property and made her homeless and stranded in Austria), so that Robert Hofschröer would then have control over Barbara’s finances and could sell the house.

Fortunately the OPG’s investigation showed that the allegations were false, so Robert Hofschröer and his family did not succeed in fraudulently selling Barbara’s home, rendering her homeless and leaving her in exile in Austria, with to Inspector Moreton’s assistance.

Subsequently Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer tried to sell Barbara’s home fraudulently.  However, Peter Hofschröer, acting under his powers of attorney took legal action and was able to prevent the sale of the house.

4.     The alleged burglary at Barbara’s home

Robert Hofschröer then reported a burglary at Barbara’s home, which upon investigation the Scene of the Crime Officer suggested was an inside job. This had had obviously been staged to provide an excuse for the missing property Robert and Martin Hofschröer had been seen stealing as recorded in the Police Crime Log, but not acted upon by the police.

Although there has been a full investigation into the burglary by Detective Chief Inspector Heather Pearson, the Chief Constable will not release the burglary report to Mrs Hofschröer, obviously because it implicates police officers in misconduct in the investigation of the theft of Mrs Hofschröer’s property

5.     Attempt to defraud Peter Hofschröer of his house in Austria

While all of this was going on, Peter Hofschröer commenced civil action in Austria to retrieve his home.

Inspector Moreton provided Robert Hofschröer with unsigned North Yorkshire Police documents on headed paper as evidence of Peter Hofschröer’s bad character to influence the court to confirm the transfer of Peter Hofschröer’s home to Martin and Diane Hofschröer. It is alleged that the document was concocted and passed to Robert Hofschröer unlawfully without the required permission or procedures by Inspector Moreton to criminally assist in the fraudulent transfer of Peter’s home in Austria.

When the fraud investigator interviewed Superintendent Lisa Winward (officer commanding York Police at the time) at York Police Station in July 2011, she refused to sign this document and also refused to summon the other investigating officer to sign it, presumably because she knows it is not supported by evidence.

Summary

In summary, Inspector Moreton protected Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer from arrest by perverting the police investigation into allegations of abuse and fraud made against them.  He then confirmed to Robert that Barbara’s house was empty, concocted evidence to justify threatening to arrest Peter Hofschröer if he returned to the UK, thereby ensuring that Peter and Barbara would stay in Austria, leaving their home in York empty. and gave Robert Hofschröer the green light to enter it, sell it and make Barbara homeless.  He then made false allegations to the OPG to ensure that Robert would have the Power of Attorney over Barbara transferred to Robert and would have control over Barbara’s finances, so he could sell Barbara’s house and transfer the savings against her will.

Finally, he provided concocted and forged evidence on police headed paper for use against Peter Hofschröer in the civil case in Austria, thereby ensuring the transfer to Robert’s family would be approved.

A classic case of Fraud by Abuse of Position against a vulnerable person by a corrupt police officer working with estranged members of the family.  The total value of the property and savings involved is nearly half a million pounds.  Clearly a lot of money available to grease the wheels and palms of a lot of corrupt police officers.

THE COVER UP

Despite numerous requests, the Chief Constable, Police Authority and the IPCC are refusing to:

a)      Provide the e-mails they allege that Peter Hofschröer sent, state how they obtained them or state what they say.

b)     Confirm how they obtained this alleged leaflet which does not in fact make any illegal statements about Mr Bednarski and which Peter Hofschröer has never seen before.

c)     Release the burglary report to Mrs Hofschröer.

d)    Respond to any correspondence.

e)     Follow the IPCC recommendation to re-open the investigation.

In short, North Yorkshire Police are maintaining their right to silence and all three organizations are systematically stonewalling to protect corrupt police officers from arrest.  This was very successful and did in fact prevent any further success in investigating the fraud and making arrests, even though the evidence has been reviewed by a barrister and he has confirmed there is enough to arrest Inspector Moreton and other officers.

Then Lord Maginnis of Drumglass took up the case and started to question the Home Office.  This triggered a massive ratcheting up of the cover up.

ENTER SPECIAL BRANCH

The attempt to have Peter Hofschröer arrested in Austria by Steve Read and Detective Superintendent Galloway for Kidnap

The IPCC has confirmed that in December 2010 Steven Read, who is a civilian working in NYP Professional Standards Department, was the person responsible for responding to Lord Maginnis’ questions to the Home Office, requested the arrest of Peter Hofschröer by the Austrian Police via SOCA and Interpol.

Mr Read requested Peter Hofschröer’s arrest (the man that by all accounts including doctors and police officers was an excellent carer of Barbara) over allegations that he was the subject of an investigation for making offensive telephone calls to York Council and police officers, that he was abusing Barbara in his home in Austria and holding her there incommunicado against her will, i.e. had been kidnapped.  The source of these heinous allegations?  Why Robert Hofschröer, (the man that was working with Inspector Moreton to fraudulently sell her home and make her homeless and who according to the Police Crime Log had stolen her property). What evidence did he provide to support these allegations?  None at all.

Subsequently North Yorkshire Police confirmed that it is not in fact investigating allegations of offensive telephone calls; the Austrian Police investigation confirmed that Barbara was well cared for, happy in Peter’s care and had regular contact with her family; as did neighbours, the mayor and her doctor. He also confirmed that Barbara had contact with any of her relatives whenever she wanted, but Robert and his family had not made any effort to telephone her, visit or contact her.  In short the entire Interpol operation was concocted and not supported by a single shred of evidence.

Mr Read is a civilian with no responsibility for investigating criminal offences other than those committed by police officers of NYP, he had no authority to initiate an international kidnapping operation.  Had Mr Read succeeded with his illegal arrest operation, Peter Hofschröer would have been prevented from giving evidence in the Austrian civil case, the transfer of his home to members of Robert Hofschröer’s family would have gone through unchallenged and the Inspector Moriarty Gang would have made a profit of about 250,000 Euros.  It is blatantly obvious that Mr Read lied and knowingly concocted a false allegation of serious crime to justify having Peter Hofschröer arrested at the request of a known criminal as part of a £400,000 international criminal fraud.

This blatant case of corruption does not of course cause the Chief Constable, the IPCC, the Police Authority or the Home Office any concern, but is a very clear example of  “SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION FROM A SECTION OF THE POLICE AT ALL LEVELS IN THE OPERATION OF ALL TYPES OF CRIME AND INVOLVING OFFICERS FROM PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS”  Professor John Laird, Baron Laird FRSA of Artigarvan referring generally to the problem of police corruption in the House of Lords recently.

Mr Read’s attempt to assist in the fraud was supported by Detective Superintendent Ray Galloway who is internationally famous because he is the detective leading the Claudia Lawrence investigation.  He also heads the North Yorkshire Police Force Intelligence Bureau and is also thought to be the Head of North Yorkshire Police Special Branch.  Detective Superintendent Galloway should have known straight away that the Interpol arrest request was unauthorized and should not have initiated it because:

a)     He knew that Mr Steve Read is a civilian and not authorised to initiate arrest operations.

b)     There was no crime number or evidence to support the allegations of offensive telephone calls and ACC Cross has subsequently confirmed that this was a false allegation without substance.

c)      There was no crime number or evidence to support the allegation that Mrs Hofschröer was being held against her will and being abused in Peter Hofschröer’s home in Austria, other than the unconfirmed word of a known criminal.

d)     There was no evidence that members of Mrs Hofschröer’s family had made any effort to visit or telephone her.

In short, the Interpol request was bogus and unauthorized and Special Branch should never have processed it to SOCA, Interpol and the Austrian Police. Subsequently, Detective Inspector Ellis of North Yorkshire Police and officers of SOCA claimed that the Interpol arrest request was a simple welfare enquiry, when in fact it makes allegations of serious crime, is classified “RESTRICTED” which confirms it relates to crime (Welfare enquiries are classified “NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED”, i.e unclassified) and the request made false allegations of criminal offences of kidnapping and abuse.

A complaint was made and this was investigated by Detective Superintendent Karnail Dulku, now Detective Chief Superintendent Dulku, Head of NYP CID who described the Interpol operation as “appropriate”.  Detective Chief Superintendent Dulku went on to assert that by having Barbara separated from her carer and questioned by armed Austrian police about a kidnapping investigation into Peter, thereby terrifying her with the thought of Peter being arrested and being left without care, Mr Read was acting to preserve Barbara’s Human Rights under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act (Right to Life).  Fortunately the Austrian Police investigation was meticulous and tactful.

In summary, it appears that Mr Read and DS Galloway improperly initiated an intelligence operation in a friendly neutral country, to use their police to arrest a carer thereby leaving a vulnerable old age pensioner alone and without care in a foreign country in order to protect a corrupt police officer (Inspector Moreton) and pervert the course of civil proceedings there, to assist in a fraud at the request of a known criminal.  Again, the IPCC, the Police Authority, the Chief Constable, the Professional Standards Department and the Head of North Yorkshire police CID do not find this concerning.

The situation of blatant corruption in North Yorkshire Police is now unprecedented in the history of the British Police Service.  Only once before has a case like this been revealed in the press and that was the case of Commander Drury the most senior Detective in the Metropolitan Police who was exposed in an article by the News of the World in the 1970’s and is still the most senior Police Officer to go to jail.  Let’s hope that this article has a similar effect on the members of the Moriarty Gang named above.

****

UPDATE

When this article was published on this blog, we did think it was the worst case of police corruption as yet uncovered. We have been forced to eat our words here, as nearly every day now, stories of even worse police corruption in Britain are coming out.

Nobody will be safe until the rampant corruption in the British police is dealt with!

Leave a comment

2 Comments

  1. Reg Oliver

     /  23/10/2013

    Who does one trust today.? After my father serving over 34 years on the Derbyshire force the police of today are a discredit to his service. I have the very same problem here in Derbyshire with matters which they consider to be “not cost effective”, this is due to my requests for a prosecution against one of Derbyshire County Councils ex employees . The Council of course being one of their partners in so called road safety.

    Reply
  1. GRANDMA B UPDATE 11 MARCH 13 | The MUSA CASE, MAURICE KIRK, NORMAN SCARTH, THE BAYLIS FAMILY, THE HOLLIE GREIG CASE – VICTIMS OF THE STATE…this site is being interfered with – pls check the archives on the right for relavent past article

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: