My attention was inescapably attracted by “Nick the Fantasist” scandal happened recently in the UK, as it largely relates to the irreversible damages improper applying of police powers can cause to lives of people. In October 2019 an ex-High Court judge, Sir Richard Henriques, made available his analysis of the work of the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) in investigating the conduct of the police officers who, as per Sir Richard Henriques, may be liable for misconduct arising from their roles in an investigation based on false claims of non-existent pedophilia ring of celebrities.

As a result, I find it useful to share my analysis of similarities and differences of my saga with the Merseyside Police and “Nick the Fantasist” case.

What about is “Nick the Fantasist” case?

“Nick” stands for the nickname used by the Metropolitan Police Service for an informer who had claimed to be a victim of child abuse in 1970s when he was a young boy. His real name is Carl Beech.

This person was, based on my understanding of the materials I have read, likely a real victim of child abuse committed against him by his stepfather. The first time Mr Beech has informed his mother about this was in 1989. By the time, it was very unusual, if not embarrassing for someone to report child abuse in the UK. As a result, the story found no development by then.

In 2012, right after TV coverage of Jimmy Savile scandal, Carl Beech decided to bring up the issue again, this time with police, but due to lack of any details and names (of those who participated in the abuse together with his diseased stepfather), his report remained unprogressed. Probably realizing the difficulties police had with his report, he decided to embark himself on what had become trendy by the time in the wake of Jimmy Savile scandal: to add to his story names of celebrities.

Whilst his initial police report made in 2012, which was left unprogressed, already had striking indications of being a made-up story (as the investigating officer has properly reflected in his conclusion), such as a whole pedophile ring existing and participating in the abuse of him during his childhood, with other often sadistic crimes being observed by him to be done by the alleged to exist ring of pedophile (rather reminding a scenario of a Hollywood movie), the new police report of Mr Beech (to another police force) was further ‘developed’ by mention of specific names of celebrities (or semi-direct suggestions by Mr Beech those abusers were specific and easily identifiable from his ‘hints’ celebrities) – from former Prime Minister to the heads of special agencies – who, as he alleged, were sexually abusing him and killed other children when he was present, with eccentric tortures and humiliation imposed on him throughout many years. Despite unthinkable allegations being made and accompanied by mentions / suggestions of a wide list of prominent, high-flying officials participating in abusing the same child altogether as a ring, the police considered him as a trustable witness, failing to make basic enquiries which would reveal the opposite and ignoring prima facie indications of doubts in his credibility. Sir Richard Henriques described the allegations made by Carl Beech in the following way:

The likelihood of a former Prime Minister, a future Home Secretary, former Heads of MI5 and MI6, a serving Field Marshal, a future Field Marshal, a retired General, a Labour MP, a Conservative MP and a disc jockey conspiring together to commit rape and, in some cases, child murder is again highly implausible.

Ex-High Court Judge Sir Richard Henriques

Whilst it is not argued by Sir Richard Henriques that the police force was correct in investigating the report of Carl Beech, the ultimate criticism which is being made by the ex-High Court judge is in the two points. The first point is that instead of applying for search warrants against a list of those elderly celebrities affected by Mr Beech’s report, the police were ought to make proper and less invasive enquiries which would reveal that such a course of action (and the whole allegations of Mr Beech) is unsustainable. Secondly, when applying to the Magistrates’ Court (making the application for search warrants, which was never ought to be done in the first place), the police have omitted the material and already available to them information, which would inform the Magistrates’ Court’s judge as to the full picture and contradictions. Such material information included the conclusion of another police force, previously investigating the report of Carl Beech and having found it strange and ‘spooky’, as also the fact that his interviews with the previous police force did not match what he said in his new interviews to the new police force (the one which was making the application for search warrants).

Sir Richard Henriques concludes in his public comments made in 2019 that he readily accepts one or several out of five police officers involved in Nick the Fantasist case are innocent and / or could not be found guilty in misconduct, but he also finds it inconceivable that all of them at once could be fully vindicated of any wrongdoing, when the character of the events is taken into the account. Instead, he suggests, there should be a fresh and proper investigation of not only possible gross misconduct but also of criminal offences committed by one or more police officers.

The story was nicknamed “Nick the Fantasist” because during the initial months of it Carl Beech was referred to by police as Nick, and because as a result of this story he was found guilty in making up all his allegations about the never existent pedophiles ring which, as per his version, included even former Prime Minister, getting 18-year jail term for perverting the course of justice and causing compensations of up to £400,000 being paid by police to elderly victims of those outrageous lies.

Similarities with “Nick the Fantasist” case

1. Outrageous lies

The main and most prominent similarity, in my opinion, is the existence in both cases of outrageous and “all-out” lies calculated to pervert the course of justice in a malicious way, the level and character of which suggests that people engaged in those lies, are pathological liars who initially were – by whatever reasons – consciously and deeply determined to mislead the system with the purpose of achieving quite limited personal benefit. In a similar way in both cases, after the initial lies were made, those were continued and developed, as a means to escape from responsibility over the initial lies: the self-trap of initial lies was closed and, starting something that was likely never expected to transform into a major case with long-standing criminal consequences, the authors of lies (Mr Beech in “Nick the Fantasist” case and the Merseyside Police officers in my case) had no choice but to ‘keep the music playing‘ as there are certain dances in this life, stopping which is impossible. Commission of criminal offences by police officers and subsequent abuse of power as a way to escape from responsibility over those is one of them. Of course, the Merseyside Police officers did not continue maintaining, after being caught in lying to the court, that I have sold a fake airline ticket and non-existent cars on eBay but, in general, their conduct is much similar to Mr Beech’s one in that they have continued to insist “there is money laundering and fraud, we just were very clumsy in our initial application but that does not matter at all, we are actually right” by putting a hurricane of dust and doubts around me as a means to distract attention from their initial application, shift agenda from defence to attack and reverse-justify it in an obvious calculation that no one would believe a Russian person investigated by the bright UK Police, whose name they continuously abuse with personal malicious motives.

In a similar way Carl Beech was hoping that no one would believe elderly people alleged to be paedophiles. Who believes elderly paedophiles when they say they are innocent? No one. They are nasty people who first abuse children for decades and then say they are innocent. No one likes and trusts them. The same with Russian suspects. First, they do those awful things one is used to read in the news and then say they are good. No one likes them and no one believes them. In such cases the attention to details is negligible, which allows the “hard idea” to over-shine the fact that I do not live in Russia for more than 9 years, that I welcome investigations (merely asking to replace the people who have committed criminal offences against me by themselves and themselves must be in jail, rather than portraying “serious concerns” about me in the name of the UK Police) and that both in my case and in the case of elderly victims of fairy tales by Carl Beech the author of the allegations is caught in prima facie and outrageous lying, which can be obvious for anyone having eyes and paying attention.

Being too engaged in following the mainstream media perception’s vector one loses attention to details and ability to perceive simple facts or questions, such as why would the bright Merseyside Police need to lie to the court that the man, known to them to be (through his firm) an official sponsor of Liverpool FC for four years, is a person whose whereabouts are unknown, who has no business footprints and who has sold a fake £750-worth airline ticket? Could people performing a serious investigation submit such outrageous lies to the court (moreover, choosing a civil application), committing prima facie criminal offences by themselves? But as these details are much less romantic than a long-expected story of at least one Russian businessman finally being investigated by the UK Police, no one bothers. This story of a “Russian suspect” is so beautiful, romantic and long-awaited that the thunderstorm of emotions and excitement blinds anyone.

“Finally!” – excitedly whispers one to himself or herself when learning that there is an investigation into a Russian businessman and monies are frozen. “Finally!” – gladly whispers one to himself or herself when learning that an elderly celebrity is investigated by police for paedophilia.

Pathological liars feel that hunger for these romantic and desired stories and they gladly give the public (and the system, representing it) what they want, often if not always for absolutely limited benefit: just like in a case where two homeless people fight with knifes for a bottle of whiskey, one should not look here for any deep logic as pathological liars are humans, and they similarly follow their low instincts when abusing their ‘skill’ of outrageous lying. This often makes them reach, at the peaks of applying their skills unbelievable, absolutely anecdotal for a normal person, bottoms, just like as is such, for example, killing a person for a bottle of whiskey. It may sound (and, I believe, is) absurd that a group of police officers have put themselves into such troubles of being caught in blatant, “all-out” lying to the court (and then the management of the force endorsed their conduct, joining these troubles), but the pressure from media and the mainstream ideas is so big that they follow it without understanding that just because the flow goes into a waterfall, it does not mean one should follow it and that “the longer they follow it the better it is” (as is plain for any reasonable person, it is quite the opposite with waterfalls).

The problem with the “media policing” is that it stems from medieval witch-hunts where a desire to believe into something, a hunger for ‘brutal justice’, replaced the reality and objective facts. It may sound terrifying today but up to 100,000 women were burnt alive throughout centuries out of a belief into something that, no one argues today in a sane mind, does not exist. Not one, not a hundred or a thousand. One hundred thousand women were burnt alive. For nothing. And similar things will continue, in lesser, but as significant as possible, extent, forever until the “media judgement” is taught to pay attention to details and logical facts, causing the police to do so as well. A Russian can be a crook. Or a person of integrity. A UK police officer can be a person of integrity. Or a crook. Anyone asserting that a universal formula should be applied is simply a successor of medieval witch-hunts.

If 100,000 women burnt alive appear to be a remote and unrealistic in modern days consequence of misguided “policing by media” one should recall Rotherham where tens (or, more likely, hundreds) of thousands rapes were ignored for decades, as recently as up to 2013. In that case police were ignoring terrifying conduct of prima facie criminals (refusing to investigate) out of desire to not cause the risk of anger of media due to possible accusations of racism. Thousands of girls with the ages starting from 10-11 (not even women, but kids) had effectively, become modern slaves in the middle of the UK out of Rotherham police’s desire to please media: no investigation, no racism. Likewise, the Account Freeze Order application (feeding the hunger of those “Finally!”-whispers) in my case was made amidst the spy-poisoning scandal of the spring 2018. And this falling into one extreme from another will keep happening until media finally ask police to… stop listening to media and, for once, start doing their job as per their real duties and the Code of Ethics, rather than repeating the same vicious cycle of cock-up time and again either in overdo or underdo direction, reading the next cock-up’s direction from news headlines.

Do paedophiles exist? They do. As do celebrity paedophiles. As do most dangerous ones – church paedophiles. They can and should be investigated. And often are under-investigated. But they should be investigated when and if a report is made or a suspicion arises, and in a proper manner, without ‘clever cutting corners’ with subsequent falling into a vicious cycle of corruption.

Do Russian crooks exist? Of course, they exist and are very dangerous. This is why I left Russia 9 years ago – to not fall a victim of such ones. Yet I have found – in Detective Inspector Bylinski-Gelder of the Merseyside Police – the conduct I was always afraid to face in Russia when a corrupt official abuses the powers of the state with rotten-dirt malicious motives of personal benefit synonymized in his mind with damaging me by whatever reason.

Should Russian crooks be investigated? Of course, they should. As do crooks of any other nationality. If necessary – with an extreme state of caution attributable to a special halo of danger inherent for Russian-related stories. But without a witch-hunt and without coming to the court and telling outrageous lies just because “media are very clear about Russians, no one cares”. Otherwise the UK policing will always be a day late, a pound short: ignoring tens, hundreds of thousands of rapes of girls in Rotherham alone; starting an investigation into a celebrity TV host paedophile only after his death, despite hundreds of potential victims and multiple reports through decades; destroying the last years of lives of prominent citizens – veterans and politicians; and performing Operation Kobus as an investigation into scary-scary Russian businessman who dared to ask why on earth the officers of the Merseyside Police deliberately lied to the court in April 2018 and why on earth everyone at the Merseyside Police’s management and Professional Standards Department just turns a blind eye on it, pretending that they do not see the prima facie criminal conduct of their officers.

2. Order of Magistrates’ Court

Both in “Nick the Fantasist” case and in my case the most dramatic events started as a result of and immediately after the application to the Magistrates’ Court. In case of “Nick the Fantasist” story the application was made by the police for search warrants (against homes of elderly celebrities, with subsequent raids performed by up to 20 officers to each home). As is explained above, the application in “Nick the Fantasist” case was critically flawed in material aspects, which led to the judge making a decision on the inaccurate (as compared to what was known or was ought to be known to police) facts.

In my case the application was made on 23^rd April 2018 by the Merseyside Police to the Magistrates’ Court of Liverpool for an Account Freezing Order in relation to my UK bank accounts.

The participation of a court is not accidental in that, before lies are processed by a court, they have much lesser impact than after a court’s order as the latter has the same power as the law in any country: a court order being produced as a result of lies is the turning point, at which malice and bad faith transform into a legal instrument of the highest degree, the law, and can dramatically impact lives of affected people due to the power of the state being applied as a result of the court order. Of course, presenting lies to the court or giving evidence to police knowing it might be used in court, represents a criminal offence. It is a very significant and important milestone, which is strikingly similar in both stories.

3. Damages to lives without actual conviction and prosecution

It is correct to say that investigating even non-existent but suspected crimes is in the public interest, because as of the moment of suspicion one cannot know whether the crime exists or not: that is what any investigation is about. However, it is also correct to say that malicious and ill-minded investigations are pursuing the benefit of no one but of the evil: it is preposterous to believe that the state is in a need of ill-minded officials to help it to perform its job with abuse of its powers, doing so through commission of new criminal offences by the public servants or as a means to disguise old ones (or both, as is the case in my story). Albeit in my case the highest arch of my claim (now brought to the level of the High Court) is to replace the corrupt investigators and bring themselves to the criminal responsibility over their conduct, for the purposes of building a point under this heading, I will go as far as to assert that the state, which needs corrupt elements to perform a job for it by committing new crimes or what amounts to gross misconduct, just to address other crimes, is lamentable and does not deserve to exist as this erodes the whole meaning of the state – pursuing the justice as the highest form of the public interest. Justice cannot be pursued by injustice, just like one cannot wash hands by rotten mud. I, of course, do not state that the UK state is lamentable – quite the opposite, I believe that it is one of the most developed and prominent systems in the world; what I mean is that anyone supposing that police officers committing crimes for the sake of investigating whatever crimes they believe in, serve the state in an acceptable way, effectively keeps in mind a picture of a tainted state, which, I know, or, at the least, believe, the UK is not.

If lying when performing investigations were acceptable for whatever “higher good”, the parliament would state so in the legislation. Through the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 it did the opposite, underscoring that corrupt exercise of police powers is a very serious criminal offence.

The damages in “Nick the Fantasist” case are discussed all over the internet, as those were at the epicentre of media attention: elderly people who have done a great deal of effort in serving the public throughout their lives, veterans and former high-ranked public officials, got to fight at the most vulnerable period of their adult lives a malicious storm of dishonest and made-up accusations, exaggerated by the attention of media thanks to failures of police in preventing informational leaks. Some of them have died before being vindicated, and the others have lost a considerable part of their remaining health. Whilst, unlike the victims of lies in “Nick the Fantasist” case, I / any my house was not damaged / dealt with physically, the main damage was in the same form with the elderly victims of “Nick the Fantasist” case: I suffered significant financial damages, I have got my reputation being irrevocably damaged, I have lost my UK business and suffered a level of stress which has significantly deteriorated my mental health, as it is not every year in my life that I oppose an arm of the state, knowing that it is in a personal vendetta with me, being focused on damaging me as much as possible. Added with the lack of knowledge of how the UK criminal system works, what are the limits of the police’s powers about which I, until recently, could guess only from films due to confidence that I simply do not need such information in my life, the malice of the Merseyside Police’s corruption has caused to me extreme levels of pain and suffering.

Another parallel is that, whilst, unlike in “Nick the Fantasist” case the Merseyside Police have done no steps which would lead to leaking the information about their bright investigation to media, they have applied a great deal of effort (and much bigger than in “Nick the Fantasist” case) to portray to my counter-parties (in two cases large US companies, with whom my businesses have multi-million and long-standing business relations) and the UK regulator a picture of “very serious criminal investigation”, directly orchestrating the well-desired by them loss of my UK business due to inability to extend the license with the FCA. They have later done the same with the IOPC, so as to prejudice its position towards my complaints, using their ‘investigation’ as a hammer hitting many critical points of my standing in this story in an attempt to create for me an ideal storm. It is fair to say they did not leak to media, but it is fair to say that they have done everything else what they could do to discredit me, contacting everyone around, authorities of every single country I dealt with, major business partners, causing business damages and quite anecdotal (and often very painful) situations. On the other hand, whenever I asked for the High Court proceedings initiated by me to be anonymized, the Merseyside Police, in the best practices of “greenmail attack” furiously opposed it. This blog was born in recognition of that opposition: they wanted to embarrass me by their abuse of the good name of the UK Police in public, I give to them what they wanted, as much as they can take it, and even more, so that at least next malicious players considering to attack me understand that sometimes one should be thoughtful with his wishes.

These events have made me to realize later why the conduct of abuse of police powers has been addressed by the UK parliament (through section 26 of Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015) as a criminal offence of “Corrupt / improper exercise of police powers and privileges” with up to 14 years imprisonment for corrupt police officers found guilty in it: no one wants in his or her life to oppose the power of the state directed maliciously and calculated to cause the malicious detriment to person’s live.

4. Existence of a pathological liar

This similarity should not be confused with the first point above: there are outrageous lies of the Merseyside Police, which are believed by me to be a collective product of the officers orchestrated by DI Sean Bylinski-Gelder, and there is a person charged with the ‘respectable’ duty to stand before the court time and again and, looking into the face of a judge with a confident face, state lies. Not every dishonest person in the world would be capable to perform this role with such a commitment and diligence, with which both Carl Beech and DC [Officer 5] gave their evidence time after time. One should give credit to their ‘skill’: even confident lying is a skill, and in their case this skill is perfectly exercised. (to a certain point when, being accused in being pathological liars and put to prima facie contradictions they start to lose all their steam and become very confused)

Albeit Mr Beech was blatantly lying during 17 hours of his interviews, DC [Officer 5], as per my calculations, has accumulated a comparable (but lesser) time of doing so under oath. He is a veteran of lying under oath. I had to fight the temptation to reveal his name on the current stage and do not do so out of the fear that it would remove the focus from DI Sean Bylinski-Gelder, whose instructions DC [Officer 5] is believed by me to have performed and for whom DC [Officer 5] is believed by me to act as a ‘useful idiot’. For those unfamiliar with this term I need to clarify that this is not an insulting, but a term recognized by Merriam-Webster dictionary as:

a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause

The usefulness of DC [Officer 5] for DI Bylinski-Gelder is in that, in the UK system of safeguards, it is a half of the deal to make up lies as someone needs to present those under oath. That important function was, at all times, performed in Operation Kobus by DC [Officer 5]. I can believe that after certain point of time lying to the court becomes a new normal for a person who already understands that he has no way back. That is a very useful belief of DC [Officer 5], masterfully exploited by DI Bylinski-Gelder. But, to not benefit the strategy of DI Bylinski-Gelder, I will retain DC [Officer 5] anonymized, so as to not remove focus from the key person behind corruption I fell victim to.

The level of lies of Carl Beech boggles the imagination when it is understood how far he went from the reality (even if him being abused during his childhood by his stepfather is to be believed). DC [Officer 5], of course, did not allege that someone was killed or tortured, but certain amounts and ‘links’ he blatantly sucked from thin air at different points in time surely competed with what Carl Beech was doing. However, and what differs Mr Beech from DC [Officer 5], where the fairy tales of the former started to fall apart very quickly after the very first indication of prima facie lies, in case of the malicious corrupt enterprise called “Operation Kobus” ‘business is as usual’ for the second year in a row (since me having brought up the issue of lies; Operation Kobus itself has now turned three years) simply because any safeguards I have invoked, including the public attention – have shamefully failed. In a society, where blindness is triggered by the patterns of “media judgement”, malicious enterprises feel themselves at home as long as they operate within these patterns. I find it shameful and lamentable for the UK’s media, provided that prima facie facts were presented in black-on-white text, but I similarly believe that one day the justice will persist. Albeit, my personal preference would be to never turn to the public message, seeing the frustrating and failing nature of the other safeguards, observed so far by me, I see it logical and proportionate to pursue this much undesired by me route.

5. Scandalous nature of the events

One day or another this story will turn into a big scandal. To be exactly, this scandal already exists, but, just like an almost-erupted volcano, it retains certain state of stability before the moment of eruption. The reason and anatomy of that scandal has similar nature with “Nick the Fantasist” case in that the level of the wrong done by a malicious actor with abuse of the system of safeguards is alike to a snowball rolled up the hill: the higher the snowball is rolled, the more snow will it accumulate when moving up and down, the bigger will be the consequences. Another analogy that can be brought up is a bubble: the bigger is the bubble the bigger impact will it make when bursting. Or, finally, the analogy of pendulum: the farther is pendulum diverted from the balance, the bigger will be the speed of its returning. The physical world provides a great variety of analogies, as, just like in physical world, much in human societies can be explained by math models.

In “Nick the Fantasist” case the factors increasing the amplitude of the pendulum were his ‘skill’ of blatant lying and readiness to do so, multiplied by the criticized by Sir Richard Henriques’s review failures of police. In my case, the “Nick” of Operation Kobus – DC [Officer 5] – has demonstrated comparable level of the skill and readiness of lying, and his colleagues, who participated in preparing those lies to be filed to the court in the initial application back in April 2018, represented anathema, an ideal storm for the public interest, as all of those officers are united by participation in the commission of the same criminal offence, include high-ranked officers and are fully endorsed by the highest management of the force, now bound by the complaints over blatant cover-up filed against them. It is a malicious engine of corruption connected to the heart of the UK system, reportable to no one and possessing enormous powers and competences of a police force, the good name of the UK Police, acting in its name, being it. Some of these people are sitting in the public office and understand that they are criminals and they must be in jail, the others understand that, if the truth reaches a reasonable decision maker, their careers are over. They do not like this understanding, and they are proactively using their powers to distance this prospective from them as much as possible. By a lucky for them coincidence safeguards against police corruption were found by me, to my big surprise, as a foreigner having a very clear image of the UK’s Rule of Law in his mind, to represent a dummy that falls apart from the first touch: there is not a single safeguard which I invoked and which would work. (surprisingly, one safeguard I never invoked and never considered it to be a safeguard, has worked without my invitation, but that topic is outside of the agenda of my blog)

These, almost uninterrupted and virtually unexceptional failures, of course, have multiplied the malice I have faced, stealing now almost 2.5 years of my life into never ending saga, causing multi-million damages and enormous stress. But one day every pendulum turns back and that will be the moment when one can observe how far it went, how big is this scandal.

6. The High Court judge

As is plain from the “Nick the Fantasist” case, the police and the IOPC need advice of a High Court judge to see ‘something being wrong’ in police powers becoming a vehicle of outrageous lies and causing big damages to lives of unsuspecting human beings who could never imagine to be bulldozed out of the blue. I am somehow confident that all this story in my case will end up by finally some judge reading my complaints – for the first time – and saying: “But he is quite right, white is white and black is black, why on earth was my participation needed to see it?”. Of course, doing so in his or her own words. Unfortunately, the wheels of the High Court are a bit slow, which is understandable, given the pandemic-related issues. Having made the claims almost a year ago, I am still waiting for a substantial hearing. All this time the criminals in public office are doing ‘business as usual’ in the name of the UK Police, largely thanks to their conduct being wholly endorsed by the lamentable and shameful management of the Merseyside Police.

7. Failures of safeguards

“Nick the Fantasist” case started in 2014 and up to now, 6 years later no proper investigation was done, as follows from the criticism by Sir Richard Henriques and the enquiry requested by the Home Office Secretary in October 2019. All this is despite the victims of the wrongdoing being celebrities, instantly addressing the issue. Whilst I do not suggest that celebrities should have a higher access to justice than other people, those elderly people are not simply pop-stars but the citizens who are recognized to have served their country and in their late age, which makes it expectable that the best resources would be dedicated to handle their case by the safeguards. This leads to a conclusion that such dedication was never done (as likely follows from the criticism by Sir Henriques) or, less likely, it was done and the results criticized by Sir Henriques are the best that those safeguards can show. Both cases cause certain concerns, to say the least.

Differences from “Nick the Fantasist” case

1. Level of misleading by police

In the first point of similarities above I have indicated that the main similarity of Operation Kobus with “Nick the Fantasist” case is believed by me to be the existence of outrageous lies directed against the victims of malice. However, the difference is that in “Nick the Fantasist” the main (if not the only) liar was Mr Beech, who is not a police officer and never was; in my story the main (but not the only) liar is DC [Officer 5]. Where Mr Beech’s lies were merely presented as the believed evidence in “Nick the Fantasist” case by the officer applying to the court, in Operation Kobus the lies were made up and / or consciously supported by the whole investigation team and presented by one of them. This collision of the roles of authorship of outrageous lies and subsequent presenting them under oath is what represents much more sinister nature of the conduct of the police in my case: the Merseyside Police officers have not simply presented the lies saying they (reasonably or not) believe them,  they had created those lies by themselves. This puts “Nick the Fantasist” case several grades lower in terms of the malice of the police’s conduct.

2. Lies were deliberately produced for the purposes of misleading the court

The second difference is that in “Nick the Fantasist” case lies were told on the interviews of Mr Beech whilst in my case those lies were presented in a court under oath by the police officers. There also was a court application in “Nick the Fantasist” case but the core of the lies was formed before the court application, collected as a hearsay by the police officers: it cannot be said that, producing these lies to the court, police officers were authoring those in “Nick the Fantasist” case. In my case the police officers were authoring those exactly and specifically for their court application. Where Mr Beech can be said to have perverted the course of justice by giving false witnessing during his interview, the Merseyside Police officers have perverted the course of justice, plus committed perjury and, very likely, a contempt of court, when the cynical approach to the application is taken into the account: the application was not simply outrageously misleading in every single sentence, it appears like if they have been enjoying when doing so, like it was done with some kind of humor, as they were deliberately swapping the names and roles in the evidence submitted to the court, repeatedly, extensively and adding an extra layer of direct lies supporting these twists and swaps of the portrayed roles. As a most salient example of that one can recall the “twist” of portraying me having sold a fake £750-worth airline ticket, which was supported by withholding my business footprints (like the known to them ownership of large brokerage firm and sponsoring of Liverpool FC right as of the moment of their court application) and positive assertions that I have no business footprints and my whereabouts are unknown, like if I am a mystery and shady (of course, Russian!) person, about whom nothing is known and who, performing low-level frauds, inexplicably possesses millions on his accounts. This bucket of criminal offences by the officers can be added by to what, I believe, that all amounts, when taken holistically – the criminal offence of “Corrupt / Improper exercise of police powers and privileges”, with 14 years maximum jail term applicable to the corrupt police officers, under section 26 of Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

3. Persistence in malice

Whilst I do not suggest that application made by the police in “Nick the Fantasist” case was malicious, as this is a point to be tested by the ongoing investigation by the IOPC, the difference between the conduct of the police in “Nick the Fantasist” and the conduct of the Merseyside Police is that the Merseyside Police have demonstrated an extreme level of monolithic persistence in malice: where “Nick the Fantasist” case was followed by extensive efforts of the police to challenge “Nick” (the author of outrageous lies) and even triggered his disappearance and turning into run to Sweden, it is much different with the Merseyside Police who exercise a tremendous support and full endorsement of DC [Officer 5], the officer whose lies have prima facie, overwhelming evidence and character. That is, of course, a result of clever arrangements by the much more clever (than DC [Officer 5]) person – DI Bylinski-Gelder, who, from the first days of learning that I am about to file a complaint in few weeks (in March 2019), rushed to arrange meetings with and “presentations” to the management of the force so as to secure that “monolithic support”. Why did DI Bylinski-Gelder arrange such a support even to the level where, effectively, the management of the force have put their names behind the acts of DC [Officer 5], who, I am confident, is understood not only by me but by all of them to be a pathological liar? The answer can be read in the reply of Professional Standards Department of the Merseyside Police to one of my complaints (received by me in December 2019 and now being subject of judicial review initiated by me):

[A] claim that [DC Officer 5] could be dealt with in isolation is unrealistic and contradictory. It would not be possible to isolate [DC Officer’s 5] behavior from the wider team …

As is evident from the above, I am not the only one who understands that shared responsibility concept – so does the Merseyside Police, this is their own words said in response to a complaint directed against Professional Standards Department (as of now the Merseyside Police, in their inherent style, have turned the position in a 180-degree turn, maintaining that only DC [Officer 5] is responsible for that conduct, but who counts how many times troubled defendants turn their position to the opposite one). As a result, nominally, there always was a dilemma before the Merseyside Police: to either sacrifice the whole squad / unit, which participated in filling the misleading application, putting them under the risk of being found guilty in serious corruption, or to tranquilly perform a blatant cover-up, an exercise of wilful blindness. They have chosen the latter scenario, which is a stark contrast with what happened in “Nick the Fantasist” case.

But the sad reality is even starker once one understands that there was never a dilemma for the Merseyside Police: the whole show is orchestrated by DI Bylinski-Gelder, who always was a member of that “wider team” and when one’s personal security is concerned, there is never a dilemma for him, at least when the person has a ‘skill’ of zero ethics. This is where from this monolithic support of the corruption stems at the Merseyside Police: there is no dilemma for them as their actions are orchestrated by a man who stands on a burning bridge. There is always only one direction on a burning bridge, and there is no dilemma which one is it.

4. The lack of celebrity victim

Whilst I believe that me being a businessman owning different financial businesses, the biggest of which exists and is run by me for more than 12 years, having sponsored Liverpool FC for 4 years in a row (and right as of the moment of the outrageous application to the court, which portrayed me as a person without business footprints and whose whereabouts are unknown), represents an example of a very rare victim of such kind of corruption, when the outstanding level of misleading in the initial court application, from which everything has started, is understood, it is also apparent for me that being perceived as a Russian person creates a big negative prejudice in terms of possible acceptance (on a subconscious level) of anything I say. And that is, of course, not limited by everyone’s criticism of my English. Where the victims of outrageous lies and unfair (malicious or not) application to the court in “Nick the Fantasist” case enjoyed much attention and interest whenever they wanted to bring a message about the lies about them, it is not the case for me, the person suffering from the negative prejudice against ‘Russian suspects’ and challenging the very respected brand of the UK Police. Although there is also a certain and strong prejudice against elderly persons accused in pedophilia in terms of perception of what they say, there were always people in the UK society who would know them personally and could question the veracity of the allegations, causing them, at the least, ability to be heard. That was never the case for me.

Despite my repeated assertions that I believed and believe (albeit now less naively as to the reality) that the UK Police is the best in the world, my vendetta with the tainted and vertically corrupt Merseyside Police is perceived by everyone as a vendetta of a Russian against the UK Police as a whole. Which it is not: it is just that the Merseyside Police as a whole represents that rotten apple in the basket of the 43 police forces of the UK.  On the other hand, I am conscious that even the Merseyside Police employs many (and even predominantly) officers of integrity, who are the future of that police force after this story is over and those corrupt officers occupying the whole decision-making vertical of it today are brought by me to the responsibility over their conduct. It is just today the corrupt officers, readily exercising a wilful blindness to corruption, occupy the most critical roles in it, causing it, as a whole, be systemically corrupt. That can be easily changed overnight, which is yet to happen, with or without help of the UK’s media.

On the other hand, I still believe that one day or another someone calling himself or herself a UK journalist will wake up from the self-inflicted coma (not to say wilful blindness) and will pay attention to this case, which is probably a most outrageous case of group corruption involving the highest ranks in the modern history of the UK Police. The question is not whether it will happen, the question is when.

5. Ability of the victim to defend

Another difference is that, unlike in “Nick the Fantasist” case, I am not an elderly person incapable to stand for myself, as the Merseyside Police must have learned up to now. However, and ironically, I believe that both in “Nick the Fantasist” case and in my case, the events started with exactly the opposite ‘clever calculation’: that the victim of lies would be incapable / unwilling to stand and defend his / her interests.

Where Mr Beech’s calculation was that a group of elderly people would be unable to break through negative prejudice one puts once there are allegations of pedophilia in place (let alone where the ‘victim of abuse’ is so persistent in his allegations), the Merseyside Police were not expecting that a Russian person can have integrity and, hence, readiness to challenge their conduct: would I be a crook, I would thankfully disappear seeing a civil (as opposed to criminal one) application made by law enforcement. Seeing the opposite approach they were so surprised that they have tried to offer me the same opportunity for a second time, three months after the AFO (in July 2018), after being challenged by me on their conduct, doing so in much clearer terms by offering to close the issue (the so called ‘criminal investigation’) without the need of an interview with me and with releasing the biggest part of the monies, leaving £606,000 for an uncontested forfeiture. To put that amount into context, it represents less than 1/3 of my current legal expenses generated by the two-year long addressing their corruption in a never ending carousel of complaints, High Court claims and proceedings, in which I need to face their fabricated and so called ‘suspicions’. I have no regret over choosing this, more complicated and more expensive way as there is nothing more precious than integrity – something that criminals in public office at the Merseyside Police and those at the management of this (currently and temporarily) tainted force will never understand: their integrity does not exist and, as a result, costs nothing. This is why the management of the force have readily put their names behind the prima facie corrupt conduct of their subordinates: they don’t even understand what is wrong in outrageous, blatant lying to the court if that was done “for operational purposes”. They live in the world where a prima facie lie can be defended by an absurd defence like, for example, the defence of DC [Officer 5] that he did not realize me sponsoring Liverpool FC for four years (and right as of the moment of his application to the court) has any bearing over his allegations that I am a mystery person with no information available about my business footprints and have sold a fake £750-worth airline ticket and a couple of non-existent used cars on eBay for amounts of £6,300 and £8,960; or that portraying my payment licensed company as a shady enterprise having no (perfectly known to them) website, which company has disappeared with clients monies long time ago (this, again, was perfectly known to be an absolute lie and simply swapping the names and roles), is a proper way of ‘witnessing the truth under oath’, as opposed to prima facie commission of criminal offence.

Tainted integrity gives birth to tainted, absurd logic. That tainted logic is good enough for DC [Officer 5] but is similarly accepted and endorsed by the management of the force, who continue to maintain that “this is in line with their high standards” even where the test of recusal was (and is) in the existence of reasonable concerns over the integrity of the officers, which is the test of suspicion of whether they have misconducted – absurdly, but even this test is not met for the management of the force, no one at the Merseyside Police even suspects that DC [Officer 5] may have committed a minuscule misconduct. Absurdly but a fact.

6. Ever growing network of cover-up

One of the differences between “Nick the Fantasist” case and my story is that, probably due to less proactive (or less relying on the complaints system) approach of the elderly victims of outrageous lies of Carl Beech (“Nick”), is that the number of involved officers is much smaller for “Nick the Fantasist” case than for Operation Kobus.

This can be accounted to the fact that, seeing outrageous and prima facie corrupt conduct I started challenging it on different layers of the Merseyside. For example, after the decision maker of Professional Standards Department, DCI [Officer 3], exercised wilful blindness to the conduct of DC [Officer 5], simply taking no action when presented with prima facie evidence of corruption, I filed a complaint against him. That complaint was, of course, refused to be upheld by the Merseyside Police and now awaits its consideration by the High Court. After having reported one of the highest ranks of Professional Standards Department for corruption and realizing that the only apparent role of it is to serve as a cloak / sump for the complaints, I found it proportionate and inevitable to turn to the next level and present the same prima facie evidence of corruption to Assistant Chief Constable Ian Critchley.

At first, ACC Critchley confirmed that he had read all evidence and concluded (in his letter of 21^st November 2019) that the conduct is “in line with the high standards I set for my investigation teams”. After, as a result of such a curious finding I filed a complaint against him on 29^th November 2019 (and then against Deputy Chief Inspector Serena Kennedy on 17th December 2019 and against Chief Constable Andrew Cooke on 18th December 2019), the Merseyside Police have changed the approach and in their decision not to record the complaint against ACC Critchley (on 8^th January 2020) indicated that my complaint against him (and his immediate superior, DCC Serena Kennedy, who had silently endorsed his decision despite my repeated letters to her and the Chief Constable) is an abuse of procedure, effectively suggesting that by complaining about their failure to address serious corruption I tried to circumvent Professional Standards Department’s function in its considering my complaint against the officers who have made the concerned misleading court application. But if that is so, why then did ACC Critchley read all the materials, make and communicate to me his conclusion? Was it just for a joke? It is often the case that the Merseyside Police turn their position to the opposite one, depending on circumstances, just like a troubled defendant in criminal proceedings changes his evidence between different occasions. Neither does their new, formalistic approach described above matches their real duties under the Code of Ethics, which are clear: a high ranked officer cannot wilfully turn a blind eye on obvious evidence of serious corruption, let alone call it “high standards“.

Likewise, a Professional Standards Department of a police force does not exist in vacuum, its competence and power stems from the trust given by the management of the force. If the management of the force maintains that trust seeing that it has been plainly betrayed by an obviously wilful blindness, it commits the same: betrays the trust of the public. This is an example how the same corruption (and responsibility over it) multiplies itself again and again, just like people participating in stealing the same property are committing the same crime. These people have stolen the integrity of the Merseyside Police and they have done so together. They have done so for the little benefit of smiling and winking to each other, just like Karl Beech opened the door to hell for the sake of getting compassion. Compassion is generally a good thing, as Dalai Lama teaches, but it can be also a benefit one looks for when performing conscious crimes or blatant misconduct.

The Merseyside Police is a ‘sick man’ of the UK police forces and by a series of repeated and continued challenges (including to the others in the Merseyside Police’s Professional Standards Department) I have reached this conclusion just like a blind person determines the shape of an object by movement of his hands: the more movements are made, the more precise picture is built by such an observer. The massive number of my complaints against the Merseyside Police, with a dozen of police officers (and even their barrister) being reported for gross misconduct and / or commission of criminal offences, is a result of their corruption in the first place and of my proactive approach in the second. Whilst I accept that without my proactive approach the highlighted picture would be different, it is apparent that I merely discover and uncover the picture which was in place before and independently from me.

To conclude this heading, the scale of the alleged corrupt group of officers is, again, much bigger than in “Nick the Fantasist” case, as is the malice of the police and the level of misleading by the police in my story. I believe that by having read up to now the reader is conscious how much bigger scale of scandal is present in my case once one takes out of the account the celebrity factor of the victims in “Nick the Fantasist” case: a comparison of “Nick the Fantasist” case with Operation Kobus shows that “Nick the Fantasist” case is, in fact, a mice as compared to Operation Kobus, the story of wilful blindness, malice and persistent abuse of police powers which has swallowed a whole modern police force of the UK, together with its barrister, against whom a separate 51-page complaint is made by me to the Barristers Standards Board on 12^th July 2020.

7. The core of the evil is inside police

The seventh difference of “Nick the Fantasist” from my story is that in “Nick the Fantasist” the evil is clear and has the name which is not argued by anyone: Carl Beech. In July 2019 that evil was sentenced for 18 years in prison for the criminal offence of perverting the course of justice. Whilst it is not argued that he himself might well be a real person of sexual abuse, when he was a child, by whatever reasons, he had been himself transformed into a monster ruthlessly feeding on pain of other people, exchanging enormous struggles of them into small benefits for himself.

In Operation Kobus the evil is much more intellectual one and has ‘puppets’ or ‘tentacles’, such as /DC [Officer 5] who is used to do the ‘dirty job’ as a walking live dummy, ready to undertake any risks, simply because he has no way back (which is, of course, in full consonance of the high standards of the Merseyside Police, the management of which does not blink an eye when being familiarized with the excuses of him supplied above). DI Sean Bylinski-Gelder is like Al Capone: on the one hand, it is not argued that he exists, but all what, the Merseyside Police portrays, is known about him, is that he gets promotions with the allegations of serious corruption made against him on the background. He is clever enough to not only send to the courts others instead of him, but also to use others to authorize those applications to be made to the courts by putting their signatures. He is a very clever man making almost contactless orchestration of the hurricane of activity (two months after the AFO application of April 2018 they ran to meet the US authorities for ‘seeking cooperation’ – as they bragged afterwards – of course forgetting to introduce their real motives, when requesting it), possessing great charisma, good cognitive functions and utilizing those to make proper arrangements in a highly non-standard situation, which caught everyone at the Merseyside Police unprepared and made him the most influential person of the force, despite his rank. As I could see many such ‘clever men’ in Russia before, it is not difficult for me to project from the past events on what one should expect from him (spoiler: virtually anything), but the question which comes to my mind is what does this ‘clever man’ do at the heart of the UK system, acting in the name of the UK Police, and when will the UK system understand to what levels of risks he puts it if he has managed to involve into his games even the highest management of a police force, starting this story by merely as a Sergeant, which is a relatively junior rank in the UK system of policing.

Conclusion

I do believe that any reasonable comparison of “Nick the Fantasist” case with my story of fighting outrageous corruption at the Merseyside Police, can result only into a conclusion of much higher gravity when the celebrity factor (of the victims of lies in “Nick the Fantasist” case) is taken out and the focus is made to the level and spread of the corruption in a modern UK police force (the Merseyside Police) and the almost uninterrupted flow of failures of one safeguard after another as a domino chain reaction.

The police forces have a very special place in the UK system and are not directed by anyone, whilst possessing wide powers, abuse of which may have extreme and dramatic consequences for a person’s life. However, this story continues right now and right here for the third year, in 2020, the modern UK. No one blinks an eye, like, during not very remote time, no one blinked in Rotherham for decades. In my case, due to the “too clear picture in media” about Russians (who, assumedly, are all the same). The UK Police continues springing from one extreme to another: when one is guided by the media, only media can fix that. One day this story will end up with a big scandal and the primary responsibility over that must be on the management of the Merseyside Police who have continuously ‘bumped through’ every possible warning sign I was placing, on the highest speed possible. The secondary responsibility must be on media policing itself: blind brutality and prejudice benefits malice and bad faith. Of course, there is another safeguarding authority in the complaints system, which has failed, and to speaking about which I will return a bit later. The bottom line is simple: on a large scale, it is all the consequences of media policing and it keeps going on in the UK, in 2020, despite one scandal being caused by it after another. But I do have a hope that I will manage to turn this scandal in a way which will make me the last victim of “media policing”, transforming the malice I suffered from into the benefit of any future potential victims of this “media policing” – from thousands of raped girls and kids, ignored by police, to elderly celebrities whose lives were attacked only because a pathological liar (Carl Beech) wanted to attract attention and had made up a story, full of striking and prima facie contradictions, just like it was done in my case to a much more sinister degree in terms of the number of the participants of the conspiracy involved. The corruption ring I allege to exists does not kill or torture anyone physically, but they are as real as is “media policing” and its real-life consequences.

See also:

• The three High Court claims which will shape the UK policing for decades
• Detective Sergeant / Inspector Sean Bylinski-Gelder
• 7 public questions on serious corruption to the management of Merseyside Police
• Serious corruption in Merseyside Police: exposed and explained
• Evidence of serious corruption in Merseyside Police: 2018-2020
• Open letter to the public of the UK on serious corruption