OPPEN LETTER TO:

THE INSOLVENCY SERVICE

OFFICIAL RECEIVER'S OFFICE

PO BOX 16664

BIRMINGHAM

B2 2JQ

Date: 21 August 2025

Dear Sir/ Madam

Re:  REFUTING ALL ALLEGATIONS OF CORPORATE FRAUD

You wrote “The UK's Insolvency Service has taken decisive action, winding up five companies, Automarket Europe Limited, Integra Group Limited, Maxell Limited, Montana & Montana Limited, and Supermarket Plus Ltd, that were found to have filed false and forged accounts. This significant crack down by the government serves as a stark reminder of the sophisticated nature of corporate fraud and the urgent need for businesses to protect themselves.”

Well ladies and gentlemen, this really was decisive action against five companies who had offered huge financial help to the new UK government from private resources investors who did not want to deal directly with, or be linked to, the new UK government.

The Insolvency Service’s decisive action appears very strange to an average person like me; despite that I have a master’s degree, am working for the government nearly all my life and that I am also a senior judge in the highest court in my country. I struggle to understand how you have come to your conclusions and what these five companies have done. Just to be clear, I am (was) one of the directors. I have tried to figure it out on my own, but cannot get close to the conclusion of the Insolvency Services.

I simply asked myself four basic questions to start with, and came up with the following answers:

1. Do any of the named companies have any business bank account in the United Kingdom?

    The answer is: NONE.

2. Has any of the named companies had any loans, or any financial packages like mortgages or other money      gains in the United Kingdom or anywhere in Europe?

    The answer is: NONE.

3. Has any of these companies applied for any government support in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in          Europe including during the Covid?

    The answer is: NOT EVEN FOR A SINGLE PENNY.

4. Do any British companies have any contract agreement with the above stated companies?

   The answer is: NOT A SINGLE ONE.

You state there is an “urgent need for businesses to protect themselves.” Which businesses? The UK government business who made, for example, a £5bn deal with India where there will be little money for the United Kingdom but more obligations and contributions to India, who will benefit from this “remarkable” deal.

Why did Germany not make such a “strategic and amazing” deal with India?

Indeed my country, Germany, did sign an agreement with India (altogether thirty-four in the last 11 months) but none were like the deal the UK made. Germany will build a minimum of six (6) submarines, not to mention other ships for India. How many submarines will the United Kingdom build for India? None! Germany also agreed with India further free trade deals, and further close collaboration on security issues.

This really is an amazing “crack down” action against these five companies.

What charges has the Insolvency department come up with against these five companies, including the one where I am (was) a director? Fishing charges!?

If you were to investigate further and check who the “players” are, please do not be surprised to see that they all support the current labour government. Not me, as I have nothing to do with the United Kingdom.

Reviewing various documents, I note there was one case in the High Court of Justice Business and Property where a court order noted that there was something wrong with the accounts – apparently, they were not prepared by named auditors. I personally did not receive any court hearing documentation nor other director.*

Checking the court documentation, I note that none of the five companies were served with proper papers for the court hearings on time. I, like others, was therefore unaware that the hearings were going to happen. Even more bizarrely, the court (assumingly, along with the claimants’ knowledge) changed the date and time of the hearing without telling the defendants.

If the defendants had received the original notification, no court hearings would have taken place on that date, and no new date notification was served as required by law.

I could not check whether Companies House received any “invitations” for the court hearings. The court orders against these five companies were obtained by very dubious means. If I am not mistaken there are currently thirty-six charges out against the people who were paid to prepare the accounts for these five companies.

All these thirty-six charges apply to individuals who are currently part of the auditors’ firms directly or indirectly. Your claim about PWC that their audit report for Montana & Montana was never done is wholly inaccurate. The person in charge of the very first audits at that time, before he left PWC was one and only "Mr Archibald" himself.

I also find it astonishing that one of the defendants along the above five named companies in the case was also Companies House. What is amazing about all of this is that the Companies House passed confidential details to the insolvency department, which is a breach of law as no criminal offences had occurred; nor was any unlawful business carried out.

Therefore, correspondence between the first defendants and second defendants should be treated in complete confidence, even more so as it was about the response to the court case with a claim against previous claimants now defendants.

The Insolvency Service also commented on the poor language in the reports. The reports were written by personnel of the auditors’ firms in Europe. I have not at liberty to disclose the names of these individuals due to ongoing cases. Therefore, their first language was not English, as mine is also not.

These actions of the Insolvency Service feel like a slap in the face to all of us. Having started with these dubious claims, you have gone further and plan to dissolve the companies. What next? Perhaps you have plans for bankruptcy of the directors?

If there is further action, the Murdoch emporium and others will receive all the details through our solicitors in Switzerland for all what was going on in the United Kingdom and Europe.**

To date, these five companies have offered to The Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP and The Rt Hon Jonathan Reynolds MP the following:

1. €5.8 bn cash lump sum; with the stipulation that money needs to be spent for

a) Junior Doctors salaries to end with strikes

b) Carers minimum hourly rate to be £25 and for more complicated cases of care £35

c) For building six new hospitals.

In return, the government to secure these free funds by issuing government bonds payable on first demand equivalent to the money given for free. All to be monitored by an independent reviewer. Bonds may only be cashed if the money is not spent on its intended purposes.

2. Lump sum of £3.1 bn for automotive industry

a) injection to cover the balance of production of electric cars and motorbikes

b) we would fund and run a vehicle support scheme offering to supply every United Kingdom citizen an electric vehicle, with a £7,500 contribution funded by us but seen as a “public/ government subsidies/ incentives” to encourage switching from higher polluting vehicles and working towards a greener UK.

c) We have also made plans for what to do, where and how to store the batteries once replaced after their useful lifetime of approx. 8-10 years.

In return, the government is to arrange charging points for vehicles all around the UK; the import duties and taxes are to be reduced for the imported electric vehicles and bikes from our production.

3. Transport infrastructure with £52 bn injection – HS2 relaunch

Investment of £52 bn for the refinancing of HS2. The investors would be 30% from France (French native being original investor), 5% from Japan, 12% from India, 35% Saudi and Qatar; other investors to be from the United Kingdom or central UK government would need to cover the remaining 18%.

With this scheme, there are several stipulations from the investors which need to be either accepted or negotiated differently, but this project could go ahead instantly. In our previous correspondence we understand that the Mayor of Manchester possibly has investors able to contribute the remaining 18%.

4. New hospital construction £36 bn injection

There is a trio of investors willing to invest up to £36 billion for new hospitals - £12 billion each – plus all the equipment, subject to further negotiations.

This trio of investors is willing to invest in the construction of the infamous “40 hospitals”, under certain conditions. It is noted that out of the planned £20 bn expenditure under the Tories, the Treasury allocated at the time just £3.7 billion; £2.2 billion of this was then redirected by the Treasury elsewhere.

The trio-investors have asked for accurate figures and details of what, where and when is to be built. We could not obtain any correct details from the then health department and health secretary Matt Hancock MP, who even went to Australia for “one TV show.” The trio investors asked four times for specific data so that they could be aware of what problems might arise once the projects were under way. There were no details given from Jeremy Hunt MP either who was in charge for this sector for over 8 years; Mr Hunt did not even want to answer on any of our seven letters.

5. Building (separately) twelve new hospitals in the United Kingdom £2.8 bn injection

Funds were secured from investors for building 12 new hospitals. The budget secured for these twelve hospitals, with the capacity for 1044 beds each, was in region of £2.8 bn.

Therefore, nearly £100 billion of investments have been offered to the new UK government. Not to mention all the additional benefits to the economy including employment opportunities***.

From my point of view and following the guidance’s of my solicitors, there is not much that will affect me personally or other director of other above named companies whatever you do, it will bounce back.

But - will I leave this as it is? No way!

We will get to the bottom of these allegations and these eccentric processes of liquidation, one way or the other. As the United Kingdom government is already under the signific pressure because of numerous issues including snap general election, we did not want to act instantly as we expected to go away. However because of your action went the other way around.

I have no doubt that my government will stand firmly with me as I and these five companies have done nothing wrong and if investors use our companies as a "middleman" because they don't want to deal with the new United Kingdom government, so be it.

However, your actions beg the questions:

1. Why are you spending public money to do something that was not needed at all

2. Who was the propagator that set off this chain of events? (Other parties’ supporters: Reform, Conservative?)

3. How do reach a timely and satisfactory resolution of this debacle? Or should I take it as conspiracy theory against us but also against the United Kingdom labour government?

Yours sincerely

Director (Ex) of Montana & Montana

and on behalf of

Automarket Europe Limited

Integra Group Limited

Maxell Limited

Montana & Montana Limited

and Supermarket Plus Ltd

* None of directors received any court hearing documentation at all.

** Person who is working for our Switzerland lawyers replied to first allegations and it was our understanding that these allegations will stopped instantly what was not the case - Insolvency service proceed by dissolving the companies. 

*** It is evident that director of Automarket Europe made clear to the to The Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP and The Rt Hon Jonathan Reynolds MP and The Insolvency directorate that just part/ex of diesel and petrol cars for electric and hybrid car will open instantly 1,620 new jobs.