Friday, 22 July 2011

Warning ! Andrew Crossley of 'ACS Law', is a Corporate racketeer and greedy shyster

Your free-thinking readers should be aware that a new type of corporate fraud will probably soon be coming to India - that is, if it has not already arrived. 
In brief, a UK solicitor (civil attorney) by the name of Andrew Crossley was the owner, and joint-owner, of two (now-bankrupt) UK firms 'ACS Law' and 'MediaCat Ltd.' Apparently, acting for 'DigiProtect Ltd.' (an impressive-sounding German-based private company which owns copyrights to pornographic, and other, material freely-available on the Net.), this greedy shyster tried to set up an extensive criminal enterprise tailored to fit the spirit of the times. In the wake of tough new criminal legislation enacted to stop Internet piracy in the UK, Mr. Crossley traced UK e-mail addresses used to visit 'DigiProtect's' Sites and then sent out an estimated 10 thousand letters stating:
'We act as solicitors for 'DigiProtect Ltd.', the owners of copyright of various films and music rights... Our client has retained forensic computer analysts (MediaCat Ltd) to search for and identify internet addresses from which their copyright works are being made available on so-called peer-to-peer programs.'
In the same documents, Mr. Crossley demanded £1665 compensation and threatened 'court action' for persons who did not immediately cough up £500. In other words, Mr. Crossley issued an estimated five million pounds value of fake invoices on behalf of 'DigiProtect Ltd.', working on the assumption that a significant number of recipients (even though they were innocent of any criminal offence) would be scared, embarrassed, and/or fooled, by a letter from a real attorney. Mr. Crossley asked for cheques to be made payable to 'ACS Law' and offered the company's registered, London postal address. Most recipients of these counterfeit bills were not fooled, but it is not known how many were. However, a significant number of innocent recipients contacted a UK consumer organization, 'Which,' and a statement was made warning the public and accusing 'ACS Law' of 'speculative Invoicing.' Since this was an obvious attempt to commit mass-fraud, why the London Metropolitan Police did not become involved, is baffling.
In response, Mr. Crossley, eventually went so far as to sue 26 innocent persons whom he continued to pretend owed money to 'DigiProtect Ltd.' because 'MediaCat  Ltd.' had discovered forensic evidence that they had all breached the UK Copyrights Designs and Patents Act. However, he then tried to withdraw his malicious lawsuit in its early stages, but the Judge insisted that the case continue; effectively, calling Mr. Crossley's outrageous bluff. Later in the trial, just before it was about to be revealed that Mr. Crossley had no real evidence that the alleged crimes had been committed, he simply walked out. At this point, Mr. Crossley's barrister got to his feet and delivered a reality-inverting statement in which his absent client now steadfastly pretended that he couldn't continue, because he'd 'received death threats from Net. Pirates.' The judge was forced to dismiss the proceedings and all costs were awarded to the falsely-accused. 'ACS Law' and 'MediaCat Ltd.' then filed for bankrupcy, but recently the same fake e-mail-invoices have started to come to the surface outside of the UK. These are still headed 'ACS Law' (albeit with a slightly different address) and they ask for cheques to be made out to 'ACS Law'. Written in English, they make the same intimidating false-accusations concerning the breaching of the 'UK Copyrights Designs and Patents Act.' 
Today, Mr. Crossley has come forward to deny any connection with these latest, e-mail demands for cash, which he has now laughably described as 'a scam' which he intends to bring to the attention of the police. In the adult world of quantifiable reality, it has been reported that Mr. Crossley (who, unbelievably, remains listed as a UK solicitor) is being 'investigated' by the 'Solicitors' Regulation Authority,' but, apparently, Scotland Yard's finest are still not on the case. This begs the obvious question: Why not?
David Brear (copyright 2011)

No comments: