For those who do not have the time to review the full information on the website, here’s my summary:
The claims made about myself and my brothers are misleading and false. My company, Tullett Brown, was an alternative investment company that operated and acted lawfully and with integrity.
In 2012 our company was provisionally liquidated by the insolvency services (and made permanent through the civil courts) but this was due to a technicality and largely because we chose not to fight the case in the civil courts (a decision I now regret). I will address each of the arguments that came up on this website.
It’s also very important to note that this was a civil case and Not Criminal ! This means that there is No Evidence that we obtained money by deception (fraud) as the media narrative claims. There was never a police investigation into this matter.
I strongly refute the claims made by the Insolvency Service and the media concerning Tullett Brown and other related companies operating for the purpose of scamming. This website will provide the necessary evidence in the form of call recordings and documents to prove this is not the case.
As far as I am aware, this was never a criticism made by our clients but something invented by the Insolvency services and the media. Tullett Brown never received a single official complaint from a client whilst in operation.
The truth about Daniel Nwikpo and Tullett Brown Limited is proven unequivocally on this website and no amount of lies told in civil court, lies told by the media or inherent institutional racism can do anything to change that.
Institutional Racism at its finest!
For those searching for me by name, you may find some unsavoury articles appearing lower in the search results. This website has been created to deal with this and correct the narrative.
This content is a dedicated deep dive into what actually happened with my company Tullett Brown Limited and other related companies and why the media have sullied my name.
This website has been set up to reveal the lengths that the government and mainstream media will go to when spreading lies.
Whilst I understand that it makes great headlines that three brothers of Nigerian origin were busted in a £5.5 million scam, this is absolute nonsense and nothing could be further from the truth. If it were true that we had obtained money by deception, then such an obvious scam perpetrated on the public would arouse the attention of the City Of London police and Crown Prosecution Service. We would have been jailed for fraud. Obviously, this did not happen. There was not even an initial police investigation!
Unlike the government webpage (here) and subsequent mainstream media articles, I’m actually going to provide some tangible evidence and context into what really happened and demonstrate why the press releases and subsequent mainstream news article attacks amount to nothing more than sensationalism, racism and shoddy journalism.
Everything you will see here will be the same information that the Insolvency Services, ‘investigative journalists’ had at their disposal but chose not to use.
The content of this website is based on evidence and facts .
Of all the tens of articles written about the Nwikpos, you will not find ANY of the information that I am about to share with you now.
If journalism were balanced and fair as it should be, I wouldn't have to create this website to defend myself and decent journalists would publish the truth or at least contact me to establish exactly what happened and why. The sad truth is that institutional racism does exist and the press simply invented their own baseless narrative around this.
This website will set the story straight and you will be shown just how far the press has gone to continue with their racist agenda. It's embarrassing that this kind of toxic journalism is allowed to thrive in our society, but it happens. I am proof of this.
Before continuing, there are a few things I would like to clarify:
-
I do not have a criminal record nor have I ever been investigated or convicted of any crime.
-
I am a law-abiding citizen of good character and come from an honest family.
-
I'm educated and achieved a B.A. Honours degree in Business and Economics from the University of East London.
-
I have a keen interest in business and set up my first company (designing and printing business cards) in 2004 with funding from the Prince’s Trust and East London Small Business Centre (ELSBC).
-
I have been mentored by leading entrepreneurs and business teachers as part of the programmes provided by the Prince’s Trust and the ELSBC.
Speculative investments
It is also important to note that investments of a speculative nature are perfectly legitimate and legal. Some investments can be illiquid and do not always have a clearly defined path to a secondary market. In many cases (such as with our company), the secondary market may develop, depending on future outcomes and variables that may or may not happen. Bitcoin in 2009 is a good example of this.
The key here is transparency. Did the investor understand the investments and were our investors fully aware of the risks?
I will demonstrate on this website that this was indeed the case.
More important points:
-
We were a professional organisation employing around 30 people.
-
Before the provisional liquidation, Tullett Brown Ltd often contributed to mainstream articles in publications such as CITY AM, HUFFINGTON POST and many others.
-
Our sales material had all the necessary risk warnings including recommending that our clients seek independent financial advice.
-
Tullett Brown had a no-quibble refund policy and issued refunds when asked.
-
Tullett Brown had a compliance department to ensure that sales were carried out responsibly.
-
Tullett Brown recorded all calls for compliance, training and monitoring purposes.
-
All associated companies were operated for legitimate purposes.
-
Funds paid from Tullett Brown to shareholders and director companies were legitimate and in keeping with standard business practices.
-
Our clients understood that the products we offered were illiquid and the market would need to develop.
-
We paid our taxes and national insurance just like any other regular business.
-
Tullet Brown was solvent.
-
Tullett Brown's accounts were in order with accounts filed.
-
All clients received the full title for the products they purchased from Tullett Brown.
-
We never received any complaints.
-
Our compliance department was designed to confirm each client’s details, make sure they were happy to go ahead and, most importantly, make sure the risks had been explained to the client before investing.
We had the following in place, above and beyond what was necessary at the time:
Compliance department
Refund policy
Recorded calls
Terms of business
Risk warnings
None of the above was required at the time but we wanted to operate to the highest possible standards.
Strategic land investment is the practice of buying land without planning permission with the hope that one day, planning will be granted. Land without planning can increase dramatically in value if permission is granted.
Green belt land is an area that has been restricted from development to preserve the UK’s open green spaces and to prevent urban sprawl. Over the last 20 years, the restrictions on green belt land have been relaxed and now thousands of acres of what was once green belt land are being developed all over the UK. THIS IS A FACT. Check your local area and you will undoubtedly find developments on what was once restricted green belt land.
There is no difference in classification to the green belt land, which the government is currently releasing for development, to the green belt land that Tullet Brown traded in.
Context and Backdrop
For those who are not aware, Britain has a massive housing shortage. In 2004, the government commissioned a review by Kate Barker to assess the housing crisis.
See Tullett Brown brochure below:
Some of the recommendations were as follows:
-
Land for housing can be worth as much as 300 times its value as agricultural land. Landowners and developers generally see big windfalls when planning permission is granted, and these increases in value should be shared with the community. This would mean considerable reforms and to simplify the current system.
-
The allocation of land needs to be more in line with the needs of the local area. If demand for housing is unexpectedly high, reserves of land should be released for development.
The outcome was that Britain needed to build 3.2million new homes by 2020 and that more green belt land would need to be released to meet the demand for new housing. That’s over 200,000 new homes every year from 2004. At that time, we were building only a fraction of that.
But where were all of these new houses going to go?
This was the catalyst for the biggest shake-up and revision of Britain’s planning laws in recent history. As a result of this, more investors began speculating on green belt land knowing that if the government were to meet its targets, investors would be in a very strong position as they could have title to this much-needed land. With this in mind, Tullet Brown was founded in 2009 to offer land without planning permission (including green belt) as a speculative investment.
All our material had the following disclaimer.
We can see that the media and Insolvency Services's claims that Tullett Brown made promises of planning permission is already falling apart.
Were our clients aware that the land we offered was currently green belt?
Yes, they were. This was made 100% clear.
So when the Insolvency Service and media made claims that our clients were unaware the land was green belt this was a lie. Any self-respecting investigator or journalist only had to pick up one of our brochures to see that this was not the case. A glance at page 19 dispels that myth. This couldn’t be any clearer, in that we openly traded in green belt land.
If you look at the page from the brochure below, you will see that the page is headed
‘Why Greenfield/Green belt and not Brownfield?’
The double-spread centre pages of our brochure discuss land without planning and the potential for re-zoning. It is made transparent that Tullet brown was originally set up for this very purpose. We offered green belt land as a speculative investment to our clients.
The idea was to purchase land in areas of high housing demand. We would divide the land into housing estate-sized plots. We sold the green belt land to our clients, whilst retaining a portion of the land for Tullet Brown for our investment. This was our business model. We invested in our own land!
What type of land did Tullet Brown buy?
We purchased land in areas where new homes were needed. We specifically chose sites adjacent to or next door to existing property developments.
See the example below. This was done transparently because throughout the UK massive sways of green belt land were being released for housing development.
This link provides an idea of the sheer volume of previously restricted green belt land, which is now being developed for housing:
https://www.winfieldsoutdoors.co.uk/blog/uk-green-belt-disappearing/
If we accept the media’s narrative that investing in green belt land is a scam then it should follow that all previous green belt sites developed for housing were scams. This was clearly not the case as the government had sanctioned the go-ahead for building. It’s very clear that this only becomes a scam when three Nigerian brothers became involved. The press already had their own narrative set.
Land banking is not a scam and never has been. It's outrageous to suggest that it is. Yes, it's highly speculative but that's the name of the game.
It's also worth noting that some of the largest investors in restricted green belt land include house builders, supermarket chains, family offices and private investors. Why would they buy this land if it were worthless or impossible to achieve planning on?
For years, the media has been writing articles about green belt land being under threat. But they don’t refer to any of these previous articles when writing about the ‘Nwikpo Land Scam’. These headlines were completely fabricated by the press to attract attention and sell newspapers.
See examples of previous articles below.
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/new-specialist-dementia-care-home-6824846
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/work-starts-major-project-build-6775848
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/plans-500-new-edinburgh-homes-23268651
https://www.thecomet.net/news/local-council/building-on-green-belt-land-near-hitchin-8610196
https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/19898352.plans-for130-homes-green-belt-near-lodge-lane-haydock/
https://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-news/plans-66-homes-former-green-6051121
https://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-news/green-light-new-1500-home-6387249
Staffordshire Council say it 'impossible' to build without Green Belt Development!
It’s amazing what is revealed when information is placed in its correct context. The articles above prove that green belt land is constantly being re-zoned and achieving planning for housing development.
The land that we offered was no different in terms of classification to that mentioned in any of the articles above.
Did Tullett Brown make promises that the land WOULD receive planning permission?
Absolutely Not! Nowhere in the brochure (or the training manual or sales scripts) does it say that planning is guaranteed or even probable. By way of example, in the FAQ’s section under the heading “Will Planning Consent be Granted?” it states the following:
“It is not possible to give any guarantee as to when or whether you will receive planning consent. We always ensure that the sites and plots that we source are in areas where there is a demand for new homes”
Our brochures and sales material make this very clear. On the same page under the heading “Disclaimer and Risk Warning”, it states:
“……….we do not guarantee that planning consent will be granted……”
The interpretation placed on the selective parts of the brochures highlighted in the Insolvency Service evidence is misleading and taken out of context. When read as a whole, it is plain that prospective customers were properly informed before deciding to proceed with the purchase.
It is also noteworthy that little or no genuine issues or complaints were raised before winding up and where clients did change their minds (both after paying just a deposit and after completion), full refunds were immediately given (see below).
We never promised planning permission. This idea was invented by the insolvency services and journalists. A common theme throughout this website.
The argument has been made to say that the local authority said that our land had little to no chance of gaining planning permission.
This is true. But it is also true for ALL GREEN BELT LAND IN ENGLAND.
The local authority can only comment on the land in its current status. If the current status is restricted green belt, then the only opinion they can give will be based on the restricted green belt rating, which is correct.
The Insolvency Service and the media are well aware that this is a nonsensical argument. This is because BUILDING IS BEING CARRIED OUT ON PREVIOUSLY RESTRICTED GREEN BELT LAND EVERYDAY! This is the very same type of land that would have had little to no chance of gaining planning permission before it was re-zoned.
The media is saying that what we are doing is a scam whilst being fully aware that local authorities are re-zoning the very same classification of green belt land for development every day. Who is telling the truth here?
What else would you expect the local authority to say?
“Yes, we are going to reclassify that green belt site soon. So buy now while you can and make a fortune!”
If it were that easy to call the local authority to get the hottest tips on future land reclassification then everybody would be doing it!
The argument put forward by the media appears quite damning when reading a mainstream newspaper article about three Nigerian brothers breaking the law but utterly stupid when placed in the correct context. To drive home the point again, if you call your local planning office and ask them to GUARANTEE IN WRITING that a particular green belt site will NEVER BE DEVELOPED, they won’t do it.
Local Authority Green Belt Reviews
This link covers the areas of green belt land surrounding London. Each purple marker represents a green belt land site under threat: londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk/threats-map/
Our clients understood this. This possibility is what our business model was based on.
Did Tullett Brown overcharge for the land?
Not at all, and the figures substantiate this. All businesses have costs and they have to be factored into the sale price of the product. Our business was no different to any other business in that respect.
Tullett Brown had massive overheads for running the business, including the following (which is not intended as an exhaustive list):
° Research costs
° Land purchase
° Solicitor’s fees
° Report fees
° City Of London office rental
° Rates
° Salaries for 30+ staff
° Commissions
° Brochures design & printing
° Telephones
° Leads & marketing
° Training
° Accountants' costs
° Tax
° National Insurance
And much more, including the fact that we had to make a profit. It should also be noted there is no legal requirement for price disclosure or a breakdown of costs.
In addition, a balance needed to be struck between the above costs to the company and the potential gains to be made by the clients if planning was obtained. It is entirely inappropriate and misleading to assess apparent profit by reference to a simple comparison of the price at which the company bought and then sold the land and to then express it in terms of percentages. It completely fails to take account of the foregoing factors.
To make an argument for the prices we paid WITHOUT factoring in our cost or the potential upside if planning was granted is just unprofessional and foolish. Again, this looks great in a damning article but it is cringingly obvious that they were desperate to mislead the public.
The potential upside of a house-sized plot of land with planning permission can be well over 100k. This is a FACT. Many property developers today will factor in the price of land (with planning) to be worth a third of the final development value.
If you are building a house that will have a GDV (completed value) of 300k, you can expect the land (with planning) to be worth circa 100k:
(⅓) Land
(⅓) Building Cost
(⅓) Profit
I will only accept that green belt land investment is a scam when the government stops releasing green belt land for development, which is subsequently sold on for millions.
Summing up the land argument
Now everything has been placed in the correct context, it’s plain to see that our business model was based on the findings of the Barker Review. The housing shortage meant that more homes would need to be built on greenbelt land. The sale of green belt land is perfectly normal and legitimate. Green belt land is constantly re-zoned for development and we are building on it everyday. We offered freehold green belt land to our clients for speculative investment. Our clients fully understood the investment including the fact that the land was green belt. They signed contracts and land purchase agreements confirming all of this.
The newspapers won’t tell you any of this. If this was our business model and our clients were fully aware and signed contracts and received full title deeds, then where is the scam?
Tullett Brown also offered physical precious metals, gold and silver. Our clients had the option of physical delivery or storage in our recommended secure vault service. All deliveries of gold and silver were completed. There was no mention of this in any Insolvency Service or media report.
By taking advantage of this service, many of our clients were able to benefit from the rise in the prices of gold and silver in the early 2010s.
I can only assume that it would have been a stretch of the imagination for even the Insolvency Services and the media to refer to physical gold and silver delivery as a scam. Not to mention the fact that our clients made healthy returns of course. So best not to mention it at all! Never let the truth get in the way of your pre-written narrative.
This poses the question, why was our precious metal department never mentioned in any of the articles or reports?
If we were a scam company then why did we complete all gold and silver purchases and deliveries?
Carbon credits by their very nature were designed to have value. For a newspaper to claim that carbon credits are worthless is plain idiotic.
My very first question to the newspaper would be, does it have a corporate social responsibility programme? Are they looking to reduce their carbon footprint? Have they ever purchased voluntary carbon credits? (And if so, at what price?)
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I rest my case!
To return to our argument, why would governments all over the world spend billions in funding massive industrial renewable energy projects in developing countries to produce carbon credits if they are ultimately worthless?
Context and backdrop
After the ratification of the Kyoto Treaty, governments around the world agreed to reduce their carbon emissions by 2012. Carbon Credits were a brand new concept. It was impossible to say either way exactly what the future would hold.
What is a carbon credit?
A carbon credit is a term used for any tradable certificate or permits representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide (or sometimes other greenhouse gas with an equivalent value to one tonne of carbon dioxide). Governments introduced carbon credits and carbon markets in an attempt to mitigate the growth in greenhouse gases.
Carbon credits were created by the formation of renewable energy projects all over the world.
Each carbon credit is a certificate, which allows one metric ton of carbon to be released into the atmosphere. This meant that businesses and individuals could reduce their carbon emissions by buying carbon credits, as this would effectively offset their carbon footprint. The bigger the footprint the more carbon credits they needed to buy.
Voluntary carbon credits (VERs) were not compulsory. These were designed for those climate-conscious businesses and individuals that wanted to offset their carbon emissions voluntarily as well as having the kudos of “doing their bit for the environment”. This did much to enhance the environmental aspect of their corporate social responsibility. We believed this voluntary market had great potential as both businesses and individuals would make conscious decisions about whom they did business with based on their green credentials. This was an incredibly exciting prospect.
Seeing this market as the next best thing, we even set up a separate company (Carvier limited) to offer carbon offsetting exclusively to businesses. As well as building a B2B carbon offsetting firm from scratch, this would also provide Tullett Brown clients with an opportunity to sell their holdings to Carvier Limited's business customers. I will speak about this in more detail later.
Are carbon credits a scam?
Absolutely not. All of the carbon credits that Tullett Brown sold were UNFCCC (United Nations Federation Convention for Climate Change) certified.
Carbon credits were designed to help reduce carbon emissions. They were also designed to have value. As a result, the carbon market is thriving today! Our clients were purchasing carbon credits on the basis that the market would potentially develop to a point where they could be sold at a profit.
The activity surrounding climate change today makes it clear that a market exists for certified voluntary carbon credits. Check out this article:
Are Carbon Credits worthless?
No! It’s very easy for journalists to make outlandish sweeping statements such as, ‘carbon credits are worthless’. Anyone with any common sense can deduce that you cannot have a thriving global industry based on a worthless product with no value.
If the jury is still out, it's worth listening to investment professionals on this matter rather than ‘investigative journalists’ who have zero interest in correctly informing the public. Please refer to the videos below:
This video is interesting. It stated that the voluntary carbon market is expected to grow 20 - 100 fold by 2030. How can this be when according to Insolvency services and Media, Voluntary Carbon Credits are worthless?
Tullett Brown understood this market implicitly! We saw it as a market with great potential and educated our clients accordingly.
To put this in perspective, the voluntary carbon market today is worth more than one billion dollars. So how can the same standard of carbon credit have value here, but no value as far as the Nwikpos are concerned? You probably know the answer by now.
Tullett Brown specialised in UNFCCC Certified voluntary carbon credits VCS standard. Today, these credits are bought and sold all over the world, totalling billions of dollars.
Another video
Goldman Sachs video discussing the voluntary carbon market - are Goldman Sachs discussing carbon credits because they are worthless?
In this video, it's clearly stated that "renewables (renewable energy carbon credits projects) can be much more expensive at $8 per metric tonne of carbon". Tullett Brown sold renewable energy carbon credits at £6.90 in 2012.
So by making the claim that carbon credits are worthless, the government and media are saying that UNFCC Certified Voluntary carbon credits CANNOT BE SOLD on to businesses or individuals at any price as they are 'near worthless'. Pure nonsense!
Who is lying to Tullett Brown clients?
Have a look at these carbon offsetting companies listed below.
£74.00 per tonne today!
On this website, you can voluntarily offset the carbon emission on your next flight by purchasing and retiring carbon credits:
https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators/new
Example:
London to Adelaide
5.2 metric tonne
COST: £127 - £389 depending on which sustainable development project you choose.
COST PER CREDIT: £24.00 - £74.00
Click on the link above to try it for yourself.
Are these carbon credits also worthless?
Is Myclimate.org running a scam?
If carbon offsetting can be done today for as much as £74.00 per tonne then surely there is a market for voluntary carbon credits. Tullett Brown sold voluntary carbon credits in 2012 for £6.90.
https://www.climateimpact.com/
Climatecare.org are currently charging £7.50 per tonne. These are voluntary carbon credits which are of a similar standard of carbon credit that Tullett Brown were selling for £6.90 in 2012.
Is Climate Care running a scam?
Are Climate Care selling worthless carbon credits?
What is Climate Care’s unit price?
Are there any investigative journalists up in arms about this?
Did Tullett Brown overcharge their clients?
No - again I make the same argument about our business costs. It would be utterly ridiculous not to factor in the running costs of our business. See the list of our costs here. Tullett Brown purchased credits for £2.00 and sold £6.90.
As you have seen above, voluntary offsetting can be sold for as much as £74.00 per tonne.
Airline Companies & Carbon Credits
In 2012, airline companies were selling voluntary carbon credits for as much as £15.00 to their customers. When you booked a flight and you were asked on the website if you would like to offset your carbon emissions, if you choose yes, in most cases you are purchasing a carbon credit to be retired at the enormous price of £15.00. These carbon credits were of the same standard as those sold by Tullett Brown.
So the question needs to be asked: Why weren’t the “investigative journalists” calling the airline companies scammers for charging exorbitant prices and not disclosing their base unit prices?
There is no answer to that one.
So how can it be that Tullett Brown was scamming their clients by selling “worthless” UNFCC-certified carbon credits for £6.90 each when airlines were charging up to £15.00 for the same types of carbon credit?
It's clear that airline examples not only prove without a doubt that there was a developing secondary market for carbon credits, but it also shows that Tullett Brown’s purchase price of £2.00 per credit and selling for £6.90 is perfectly reasonable, especially when you consider our operating costs and the prices that carbon offsetting companies are charging today. This proves both the market and the value was there!
-
The £6.90 we charged our clients is NOT extortionate.
-
There is clearly an appetite for businesses and individuals wanting to offset their carbon footprint by purchasing carbon credits.
-
There was an opportunity to capitalise on this as a business when a market clearly existed.
Is there a secondary market for Carbon Credits?
All carbon offsetting businesses are simply middlemen. None of them are actually producers of Carbon Credits themselves. This means that they are buying carbon credits at low prices and selling for higher prices to businesses and individuals who want to voluntarily offset their carbon footprint. A feat that is apparently impossible if you go by the government and media narrative as they continuously claim that carbon credits are worthless. Small businesses and Individuals offsetting was the secondary market in the case of Tullett Brown clients.
It is an absolute FACT that there is a market for both businesses and individuals who want to voluntarily offset their carbon footprint otherwise these offsetting companies would not exist. Carbon offsetting companies prove that both business and individuals are prepared to pay more than the £6.90 that Tullett Brown was charging carbon credit per credit in 2012.
Yes it would require a specialist brokering service in order for our clients to sell their carbon credits but thats also true for many other types of investments. Without the services of specialist brokers and agents it would be pretty difficult and time consuming to sell many types of investment holdings including stocks and property. Try selling your AIM stock portfolio down your local pub.
It's my opinion that our clients Carbon Credits holdings could have been sold on for a profit to the very same individuals and businesses that want to voluntarily offset their carbon footprint today by purchasing carbon credits from offsetting companies as seen above. Im not exactly sure why this is deemed beyond the realms of possibility by the Insolvency Service and media. It just required a committed and dedicated team with the long term vision in mind. That team was us. The authorities and press just couldn't accept that we had such intentions.
If small businesses and individuals can offset their own carbon footprint via the purchase of voluntary carbon credits, then this is completely at odds with the idea that carbon trading can only be achieved by big business and therefore there is no market for the small tranches of credits owned by Tullett Brown clients. The truth is that Individuals and small businesses will ONLY require the small tranches of credits like those owned by Tullett Brown clients.
Tullett Brown was in the process of building out an infrastructure to create a viable secondary market for our clients and the wider market. As I mentioned earlier, transparency is the key. Our clients were aware that the carbon credits were illiquid and the market would need to develop.
Did Tullett Brown mislead their clients?
No. Our clients were fully aware of the nature of the product and the risks that the investment posed. Our clients were also aware that the investments in carbon credits were illiquid and would require further development in the marketplace to resell. Had we been around today, our infrastructure would have been built out and I am in no doubt that our clients would have made a profit.
We made great efforts to explain this to our investors as well as including a risk-warning page.
On the very first page of our brochure, it clearly states that VER credits are illiquid. Please take the time to read the warning page. Also, note that this was not hidden on an obscure back page with tiny barely legible small print. It is clearly shown on the VERY FIRST page so that it would be unmissable and easily seen.
Wouldn't a notice such as this hinder our ability to scam?
If carbon credits can be sold for profit by businesses all over the world today, then why couldn't they be sold for profit by our clients?
Summing up the carbon argument
When placed in its correct context it’s easy to see what we were trying to achieve. In 2012, carbon credits were a new and exciting market. The whole world was focused on reducing its carbon footprint. Every client signed (either manually or electronically) our Terms Of Business before engaging in any sales activity. Our clients were fully aware of the nature of the product and the associated risks. This was made absolutely clear. Our compliance department oversaw this process. Contracts were signed and we delivered the full title to every single client. The Carbon Credits were held by a third party custodian who was regulated by the FCA.
So where is the scam?
In 2012, Tullett Brown won the BEST COMMODITIES BROKER WESTERN EUROPE AWARD. This was awarded by World Finance magazine and we were invited to a ceremony at the London Stock exchange to collect the award. There was no mention of this anywhere. Not in the government press releases or the media.
Since then, efforts have been made to discredit the magazine but winners in other categories included finance heavyweights such as Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, UBS and Credit Suisse. So is the inference that they have also infiltrated and scammed the award too?
You can see the award video here:
The media wants you to think that we were Nigerian scammers. The truth is that we built a successful business and were recognised by a leading financial publication.
Tullet Brown offered a no-quibble refund policy. You can see below a list of the refunds made.
There had been instances where clients changed their minds and in each case, the client was reimbursed without quibble or question.
Our sales process required each client to pay a £500 deposit over the telephone (via debit card). If the client then changed their mind before full payment was due and asked for a refund, this would be given with no questions asked. In the six-month window from 17/06/11 to 28/11/11, the company refunded at least thirty deposits totalling £23,540 as follows.
I have abbreviated the clients’ names to initials for obvious reasons
Refunds After Completion
During this same time window, the company refunded four clients in full after they had fully completed the transaction. These were FULL REFUNDS AFTER COMPLETION – something that is unheard of:
25/10/2011 J S £2070.00 Carbon Credits
27/10/2011 B H £2070.00 Carbon Credits
26/09/2011 D S £3450.00 Carbon Credits
28/11/2011 N C M £3450.00 Carbon Credits
Is this behaviour consistent with a scam company? What would be the point of defrauding your customer only to refund them when asked?
Terms of Business
Tullett Brown required all prospective clients to read and sign our Terms of Business before engaging in any sales aspect. We could introduce ourselves and explain who we were and what we did, BUT could not engage in any sales activity until our Terms of Business had been signed by the prospect. This is an extremely high standard compared to other non-regulated brokers.
Tullett Brown was not required to do this but wanted to ensure that our clients understood the risks and were fully aware of the nature of these products. This is yet another example of Tullett Brown going above and beyond what was necessary at the time to ensure full client understanding.
See full Terms Of Business here:
EVERY CLIENT HAD TO SIGN THIS PRIOR TO ANY SALES ACTIVITY.
In it is contained the following risk warning:
RISK WARNING
-
All investments are speculative and will fluctuate in value. It should not be assumed that the value of investments would always rise. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. You may get back less than the amount originally invested or even lose the full amount.
-
You should carefully consider in the light of your financial resources whether investing in carbon credits is suitable for you.
-
Changes in currency exchange rates may adversely affect the value of any overseas investments or investments denominated in a foreign currency.
-
There may be a big difference between the buying price and the selling price of carbon credits. If you have to sell them immediately, you may get back much less than you paid for them. You may have difficulty in selling carbon credits at the price you wish to achieve and, in some circumstances, it may be difficult to sell them at any price. It can be difficult to assess what would be a proper market price for these investments. You should not invest in carbon credits unless you have thought carefully about whether you can afford to do so and have taken appropriate independent advice.
-
Representations made by our sales consultants, agents or sales literature either orally, on paper or in electronic form do not form part of these terms. We give no warranty as to the future value of carbon credits.
-
Forwards, options and other derivative contracts concerning carbon credits are regulated investments in the United Kingdom. However, carbon credits sold by us are not derivatives and, as such, are not regulated investments. Accordingly, we are not required to be regulated by the Financial Services Authority (" FSA") or any other regulator in the United Kingdom. This means, among other things, that a person buying carbon credits from us will not benefit from any protections afforded by the FSA and would not have access to the Financial Services Ombudsman or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
See original here
By law, Tullett Brown was not required to have any Terms of Business. So let me ask you - is this the kind of behavior that you would expect from a scam operation?
Compliance Department
Tullett Brown setup and implemented a compliance team who sole purpose was to ensure that sales were done responsibly and also confirm that the risks were fully explained. Yet again, another step way beyond what was necessary at the time.
Are the Insolvency Service and media going tell you about this? No chance!
Compliance Calls
At Tullett Brown, all calls were recorded for training and monitoring purposes. This means that Tullett Brown has a recording for EVERY SALE the company made.
Are the media going to tell you that we recorded all calls? What do you think!
When a sale was made. Our broker was REQUIRED to read out the risks associated with the investment. As a second layer, just to be sure, the compliance team would call the investor sometime afterwards and ask if the risks had been explained to the investor. Had any investor said no or was unsure, the compliance officer was required to read the risks to the investor again before asking if the investor would still like to continue with the investment.
This Tullett Brown employee was a junior compliance officer conducting a real compliance call in 2011. This call was used for further training as there are some steps missing.
LISTEN TO THE COMPLIANCE CALL HERE.
How many scam companies have such measures in place? Is this behaviour consistent with that of a scam company? In fact, why would any scam company record their calls?
Why didn't Tullet Brown fight this in Civil Court?
People often ask me why I didn't fight this in court. The short answer is that the Government fights dirty – very dirty in fact.
Two weeks before the provisional liquidation of Tullett Brown, Barclays Bank removed a total of some of around £250k from the Tullett Brown bank accounts (£177,298.43 as seen below and the rest from a separate Tullett Brown client account). Efforts were made to find out the cause of the problem only to be told there was a problem with the account that they were working hard to resolve and the money would be restored to the account immediately.
This turned out to be a lie.
They even put this in writing claiming to have ‘Operational difficulties’. See a copy of the letter below:
The lies went on for weeks. We later found out that the Insolvency Service had contacted our bank and asked them to remove the funds from our account. The business accounts were frozen!
The Insolvency Services would later go on to say that this was done to protect the investors. Well, this is more nonsense. It would appear that this was done to hamper our ability to fight them in court and is tantamount to OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION.
Everybody knows that when a company is liquidated, any remaining funds within that company will be eaten up in extortionate liquidator fees. How does this help the investors? It would have made much more sense to negotiate with us to give the clients an offer of full refunds. In total, around £650,000 of Tullett brown funds were seized by the Insolvency Service. Nice payday for the liquidators.
See approved HOURLY rates below!
Tullett Brown was a limited company (a separate legal entity) with its own corporate bank account. Tullett Brown had the right to defend itself as a business using the funds from its bank account. This wasn't allowed to happen. Tullett Brown should have been presumed innocent until proven guilty. Well if you remove the company funds before it even gets to court, then that is very much guilty until proven innocent.
So, they effectively tie your hands behind your back and then say, “now fight me!” This is cowardly! In a fair fight in civil court, I believe we would have easily been victorious as the evidence provided here is irrefutable. However, the business reputation would have been irreversibly damaged.
I then had a very important decision to make. Do I now personally fund a civil court case potentially costing hundreds of thousands and dragging on for a long period? Alternatively, do I just walk away and start again? I decided to walk away. At the time, I felt there was no upside as the company had been damaged beyond repair. Already extremely stressed, I couldn't face a potentially lengthy and costly civil court case.
As the company had already been severely damaged with the initial provisional liquidation, potentially spending hundreds of thousands in a long drawn-out civil case against the Insolvency Services who had unlimited access to the public purse didn't seem like a wise move at the time. I knew our company operated legitimately and I naively thought that the Insolvency Service would put forward a case that was based on their view that they felt our investment wasn't suitable for investors. The flipside to this argument DOES NOT automatically mean that you defrauded your clients.
Even more naively, I thought that if the story were released to the press, they [the press] would contact me for comment where I could present this important information. How wrong was I? I expected transparency, fairness and honesty where there was none.
Never for a second did I think that the government and media would invent a narrative and tell blatant lies to the public. They both decided on the narrative that we swindled our clients; which of course was a lie. They used this lie to make up stories, sell newspapers and make money.
Lies told in the civil court
They said that we had promised the following to our clients:
Investing in carbon credits was a "no-brainer".
Carbon credits were ‘"virtually guaranteed".
Carbon credits were "backed by the UN".
Clients were promised permission for planning.
Our clients were unaware of the land's green belt status.
"Virtually Guaranteed" to increase to 50% in one year
They twisted the facts...
-
"UNFCCC Certified" became "BACKED BY THE UN"
-
"The overall carbon market expected to grow by 50%" became "YOUR INVESTMENT WILL GROW BY 50% IN ONE YEAR."
-
"New and exciting market" became "NO BRAINER"
Why would Tullett Brown go to all the trouble with compliance, call recordings, term of business and training just to make the stupid claims written above?
Furthermore, wouldn't such claims have been recorded?
This was all complete rubbish, none of which has any credible merit or evidence to back up these claims. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on this website to prove this isn't true. Our compliance department, terms of business and training manuals and call recordings prove that these are lies and put the Insolvency Service and media to shame.
The media circus that followed was an absolute joke, all based on the lie that we scammed our clients and that they [the press] felt that needed no further investigation because this is what happened.
Had we been white, the media would probably want to know more about why these three educated brothers with clean records had got into this mess. They would want to understand more before going hell-to-leather to print. Unfortunately, we were black and were not afforded such consideration.
As there was no criminal case to answer for obvious reasons, they did the next best thing; they used their friends in the media to give the impression we were criminals and called us scammers. This is another word for fraudsters, the definition of which is ‘obtaining money by deception’ which as we know, simply isn't true.
The Fall Out
As we did not defend any of the cases above for the reason discussed earlier (corruption), their blatant lies were accepted and the government won their civil case by default and Tullett Brown was closed permanently and its directors and shareholders were fined and banned from being company directors for 13 years.
Foxstone Carr (FSC)
In 2011, we were operating three companies. We were growing fast and expanded our business by opening another alternative investment company called Foxstone Carr (FSC). FSC offered investors precious metals and carbon offsets.
Carvier Limited
Later that year we expanded even further, incorporating Carvier Limited. Carvier was going to be the jewel in the crown. Carvier limited was set up offering carbon credits exclusively to businesses. We had sourced what we felt were the best carbon offset projects that also positively impacted the local communities they were produced from. We were involved in lengthy talks to become exclusive distributors with a producer in Brazil. We believed that in years to come we would be competing with organisations such as JPM Climate Care, Royal Dutch Shell and the like.
We had plans for Carvier to be one of the UK’s leading Voluntary Carbon Credit specialists helping an array of businesses to go carbon neutral. We had excellent contacts in the industry. We felt Carvier would have a long and fruitful future.
An interesting by-product was that Carvier would have access to both business buyers(through its own endeavours) and sellers(via Tullett Brown) thus creating a platform for Tullett Brown clients to sell their credits to businesses. We understood that such a platform would be important for Tullett Brown client sales.
After the closure of Tullett Brown, the insolvency services began investigating Carvier Ltd and Foxstone Carr Ltd.
The media wants you to think that we were continuously opening one scam company after another but this is not true. All three companies (two trading) were operating simultaneously. Once the Insolvency Service were successful in closing Tullett Brown without a fight, they made light work of closing both FSC and Carvier by association.
Any company that was linked to me was quickly closed with the scammer narrative used to cover up the blatant abuse of their powers.
They even managed to close down Carvier, which had never even traded and was set up to serve business customers exclusively. How do you close a company that hasn't even traded? You lie of course.
Andrew Pennman of the The Daily Mirror newspaper wrote the headline below:
“Third Nwikpo Scam closed”
The article goes on to say the following....
"The scale of the scam is unknown because the firm refused to co-operate with the Insolvency Service."
What honourable and ethical editor would allow this? Without a shred of evidence of wrongdoing, you proceed to create the headline above. Isn't the whole point of an investigative journalist to INVESTIGATE?
More lies. We had a lengthy meeting with the Insolvency Services during their investigations. We assisted them with their enquiries and answered all of their questions. THIS WAS WITNESSED AND DOCUMENTED! The Carvier business plan was presented and explained to them in detail.
The headline above is disgusting. Shouldn't this be ringing alarm bells with anyone who reads it? This headline is code for: there was no scam, so we’ll just say it's ‘unknown’!
So let me get this right, they are reporting on an unknown scam?
They weren't about to tell the world that the Nwikpo brothers had a plan to bring carbon neutrality to all businesses from your local sandwich shop to haulage companies and airlines.
Another great article below. Remember, Carvier had NEVER EVEN TRADED and obviously had never made any sales. But they still managed to come up with gems such as this which claims we 'duped investors'.
https://www.iexpats.com/carbon-credit-scammers-closed-for-the-third-time/
THE REAL REASON CARVIER WAS CLOSED
What is interesting is that it does reveal the real reason that Carvier limited was closed down..
"In addition to the lack of co-operation and failure to maintain records, the grounds for winding-up Carvier Limited included a lack of transparency for its management and breaches of the Companies Act, mainly for failing to display its name at its registered office and failing to file an annual return."
So no scam then...
This means Carvier Limited was closed down for the uncontested allegation of apparently failing to co-orperate and FAILING TO DISPLAY ITS NAME AT ITS REGISTERED OFFICES AND FAILING TO FILE A TAX RETURN! This story not being juicy enough, the Insolvency Services and media pressed on with the scammer narrative. Shameful Journalism!
See shameful shoddy journalism below. All for a company that never traded.
https://dextralegal.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/carvier-ltd-shut-down-in-landbanking-scam
https://www.iexpats.com/carbon-credit-scammers-closed-for-the-third-time/
The Insolvency Services knew there were no investors so they just said we refused cooperate so it was unclear how many investors may have been duped. Even though they had access to all banking records proving that no investors ever existed.
Again, the same pattern emerges. No police investigation, No Criminal Court. Obviously no evidence of wrongdoing. Just made to look like criminals. This time for a company that never even traded. And we (The Nwikpos) are supposed to just accept this as completely normal with no racial undertones.
See original draft files for the Carvier website. The web images below, will show you that this business was set up purely for the sale of carbon credits to businesses just as Shell, and others are doing today:
See Website images and Carvier green themed offices here
As you can see from the stock images, these drafts (from 2011) were sent to us for approval during the design process. Please note that this was a draft and NOT YET READY FOR RELEASE. The point is that you can clearly see the intentions of the business.
CARVIER WAS NOT AN INVESTMENT BUSINESS!!
Green themed offices complete with custom wallpaper. Unfortunately, this office was never used.
Did Tullett Brown use high powered lawyers to protect us while we continued defrauding?
No! We used experienced media lawyers because we were dealing with lying journalists who clearly had an axe to grind. Read the whole truth complete with evidence below.
In June 2012, Andrew Penman of the Daily Mirror ran an article calling us scammers. This article is full of misleading nonsense (see breakdown HERE). They also claimed that we had used high-powered lawyers to protect us as we continued defrauding. This is complete rubbish and I would like to share the story with you based on FACTS and EVIDENCE.
TONY LEVENE CALL
“Investigative journalists” will often make enquiries or fill out forms online to speak to or attract sales calls from investment companies.
In 2011, one of our junior brokers unwittingly made a sales call to journalist Tony Levene. The data was provided to us by lead specialists Uni Prospects on 17th June 2011. Tony Levene had op-ted in to receive calls from third parties.
After this call, Tony Levene then went on to write a damaging article on the Love Money website based on the sales call he received. The problem is that Tony Levene had lied about most aspects of this call. He said that he was subjected to high-pressure sales tactics and was promised ‘big profits’ whilst saving the world! He claimed that we falsely told him that the overall carbon market valued at $500bn when we actually gave him the correct figure at the time of $240bn. And many more lies...
Naturally, we consulted our legal representatives and demanded that the damaging article be taken down.
How could this polite and courteous call cause such a reaction? It is my view that the problems start as soon as Tony Levene becomes aware the company is owned by brothers with the African surname Nwikpo.
YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE CALL HERE.
Full call breakdown coming soon.
Our consultant is polite and courteous. Incidentally there is absolutely no evidence of the stupid claims made about Tullett Brown in civil court. All claims made by our consultant about the market were FACTS!
Why didn't our consultant tell Mr Levene that Carbon Credits are "Virtually Guaranteed"?
Where was the talk of Carbon Credits being a "no brainer"?
Where was the barrage of lies that we used to con our 'victims'?
Above all, Mr Levene is guided to our website where he must fill out he's details and most importantly, tick a box to confirm he has read our Terms of business before any further communication. This is made clear as our consultant advises Mr Levene: "what they normally need is your permission to contact you ".
Again, contrary to the nonsense printed in the national press, this is a very high standard compared other non regulated brokers and completely flies in the face of the scammer narrative.
Back to the story
Levene and Love Money were forced to remove the article his lies we exposed.
Tony Levene wasn't happy about this and decided to troll Tullett Brown on the internet under the name ScamBuster 66. He went into online forums claiming that Tullett Brown was a scam company and was now being investigated by the Daily Mail. How could he have known this? Is this the standard of behaviour of a practising investigative journalist?
Taking matters even further, he then went on to contact his Journalist friend Tony Hetherington of the Daily Mail.
We [Tullet Brown] then received a letter from Tony Hetherington who then proceeded to lie by claiming he had an enquiry from a genuine member of the public who was concerned about Tullet Brown’s trading activities. THIS WAS A LIE. The whole story was cooked up between himself and Tony Levene. SEE HETHERINGTON LETTER HERE
This is important to note because Tony Hetherington (The Reader’s Champion) should be investigating genuine stories from members of the public that have real concerns, not lying to promote stories from other journalists who have a personal vendetta against the company because they were forced to remove an article. This practice is still going on today.
After reading Tony Hetherington's letter, it was clear that our company had a problem with elements of the media that were not motivated by honesty and truth but in my opinion RACE!
We contacted CARTER RUCK, which is a well-known media law firm and set a plan into action.
After explaining the situation to Carter Ruck, it was plain to see that this was no longer standard journalistic practices we were dealing with but something far more personal and sinister. Tony Levene had an axe to grind.
The following letter dated 28 October 2011 was sent to Tony Hetherington and the Editor of the Daily Mail. In it, we answered Tony Hetherington's questions and laid out our concerns over poor journalistic practices between himself and Tony Levene.
SEE THE LETTER FROM CARTER RUCK TO TONY HETHERINGTON AND THE DAILY MAIL HERE.
DOUBLE CLICK TO READ FULL LETTER
After receiving our letter, The Daily Mail decided not to publish their article and sent us the following letter…..SEE HERE.
We also sent a letter to Tony Levene where we highlighted his lies. Click letter below to read in full.
No doubt, this would have infuriated Tony Hetherington, Tony Levene and the Daily Mail.
This had nothing to do with obstructing free speech and everything to do with what can only be described as a witch-hunt. If our argument had no merit, then why didn't the Daily Mail go ahead with their article?
Since the closure of Tullett Brown, it has been ‘open season’ for these so-called journalists and they have gone on to write many shameful, under-researched articles since, not once contacting me to ask for a comment.
They are only investigative journalists by name. In my opinion, they are part of the old establishment, the ‘Fleet Street Boy’s Club’, abusing their power as journalists to project a narrative that suits their own, [in my opinion] racist agenda. They can say and print whatever they like about anybody and act with impunity as only the rich can defend themselves against in such matters.
Carter Ruck's Wikipedia entry
They even went to the trouble of listing Tullett Brown in the Wikipedia notable clients and cases alongside stories involving Madeleine McCann, The Labour Party and The Government of Hungry. They were relentless!
As you have just read, our involvement with Carter Ruck never amounted to anything more than a letter to a national newspaper but somebody has decided that this is a famous Carter Ruck CASE.
You have to bear in mind that Tullett Brown did not commit any crime. Did we deserve a place here? When your skin colour is of concern, then the answer is yes!
The Wikipedia section reads as follows:
Carter Ruck was reported as aiding 'scammers' Tullett Brown[27] enabling them to continue trading for 3 years whilst netting £3.2 million from investors. They threatened to sue journalists including Tony Levene if they reported the information publicly, thus stifling free speech. However, Levene himself stifled an investigation by another newspaper by alerting Carter-Ruck through his internet postings. Carter-Ruck appears to try and distance itself from criticism in the press by replying to The Guardian's questions – "The partner who dealt with Tullett Brown is no longer at Carter-Ruck. Also, as you are aware, Tullett Brown is now in liquidation. We have no instructions to respond to your questions."[28]
I have already proven that this is a load of rubbish. Fiction from lying bigoted journalists! No prizes for guessing who is behind this entry.
It's also worth noting another lie. We have just seen the content of the previous Carter Ruck letter dated October 2011, Tullett Brown was put into provisional liquidation 5 months later in March 2012, yet in this Wikipedia entry, we were able to trade for three years after the Carter Ruck intervention. Utter nonsense!
Carter Ruck did not defend us in the courts and our inclusion in this list is ridiculous. This is obviously from a journalist who has an axe to grind!
Andrew Penman’s article
This man is a liar. He turns up at my home wearing high-vis clothing pretending to be a courier. The true intention was for his hidden photographer to photograph me for his expose article, which ran in June 2012 (after Tullett brown liquidation).
Although they would have taken many photos (possibly 50+) during this brief encounter, he decided to use a photo, which caught my face in mid-expression, which would have given the reader the impression that I was angry or aggressive. This was done to feed into the stereotype that a 6ft black man is aggressive or violent. This certainly was not my demeanour during our encounter.
I know the racial stereotypes element to be true because Andrew Penman went on to write another article, this time calling me a conman but using a different picture (he obviously couldn't use the same distinctive image as before) from the same set of pictures they took from our first encounter. The picture was normal. So the mid-expression image they chose was deliberately done to con the public into thinking I was aggressive. Shameful journalism.
Joe Peacock from the Insolvency Service
Another liar and sue me if I'm wrong. He claimed that Carvier failed to cooperate with him.
Joe Peacock from the Insolvency Service has decided to include Tullett Brown in a recent blog post SEE HERE that he has written about a recent fraud case in which the owners of the company in question were convicted and jailed for 13 years. The blog leaves the reader with the impression that the Tullett Brown shareholders (the Nwikpos) also committed fraud and were jailed. This blog looks like it was designed to carry the Tullett Brown name to reignite the story, which is now 10 years old.
Joe Peacock comments below:
Tullett Brown Limited:
The first company in a long chain of companies involved in the sale of carbon credits as investments was Tullett Brown Limited. Tullett Brown Limited was initially engaged in land banking: selling small parcels of land - often in areas with no chance of development - at high mark-ups and claiming they will be developed into housing.
The company then moved into marketing and selling carbon credits as investments. Both 'investments' were sold to the public at inflated prices and generated £3.2million.
A winding up petition was presented in March 2012 against Tullett Brown Limited and 3 other companies, following our confidential investigations into the live companies. The 4 companies were wound up in June 2012, with the Official Receiver appointed as liquidator of these companies.
How can Joe Peacock make those comments when the very government that he works for is continuously releasing more greenbelt land for development everyday?
How can he say we sold our carbon credits for inflated prices when basic online research proves that carbon offsetting firms are charging way more then the £6.90 that Tullett Brown were charging?
He even goes on to tell two more blatant lies. He claims that Tullett Brown was the first company to sell carbon credits for investment. This is nonsense as there were plenty of companies operating in this area before we were involved.
He also claims that the land was sold whilst "claiming they WILL be developed into housing". As you now know from the documents provided above that this simply isn’t true.
What can I say.....just an out and out lier!
To make matters worse, Joe Peacock was one of the original investigators into Tullett Brown's activities and would have had access to all of the evidence provided on this website. He withheld all of this information.
Joe Peacock has access to our sales training manual, which said on the FRONT PAGE:
“Tullett Brown make no guarantees, only death and taxes”
“We do not have special relationships with local authorities”
“Investment in land is a long-term investment”
“All investments sold by Tullett Brown are for the long term”
Why would Joe Peacock go out of his way to mislead people about Tullet Brown 10 years after the event? My answer is institutional racism. Very sad but true.
With access to all call recordings, the Insolvency Service couldn’t find any incriminating evidence. Really?
The Insolvency Services had full access to our computers, brochures, emails, internal documents, files, call scripts, training handbooks and call recordings.
WHY WASN'T OUR CALL RECORDINGS USED AGAINST US AS EVIDENCE IN CIVIL COURT?
There should have been a treasure trove of incriminating evidence against us, but strangely, there is no mention of any incriminating findings at all.
All they could do was result in a barrage of mudslinging, saying that Tullett Brown paid £2 for carbon credits and sold for £6.90 (without even factoring in our costs? Is this a point of contention?),whilst ignoring the fact Airlines and others were charging up to £15.00 per carbon credit.
Or the fact that we didn't disclose our purchase price to our clients? Is this a legal requirement?
Does every business disclose its purchase price to its clients? And the best you can come up with is an email of my brother and I casually discussing pay distribution?
Or that we “tried to make our outgoing payments look legit”. THEY WERE LEGIT!
Where is the smoking gun?
Where is the list of clients without any documentation for their purchases?
Where are the incriminating emails discussing the scam and making fun of our investors?
Where are the planning permission guarantees we made to investors?
Where is proof of the guaranteed buyback promise made to investors?
Wheres the evidence of us selling carbon credits, land or gold that didn't exist?
Where is the incorporation of a separate company that writes to investors promising buy back at 5 fold the purchase price?
Where are the scam sales scripts making false statements and guarantees?
Where are the scam training manuals teaching staff how to defraud and high-pressure sell?
Where is the proof of large cash withdrawals from the Tullett Brown business bank account?
Where were the call recordings that would easily prove your case?
Where is the criminal prosecution?
Where are the lengthy jail sentences?
Nowhere to be seen because it didn't happen!
Compare our story to this actual criminal case resulting in jail sentences for the white directors.
You can read about this in the report below:
https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/wg-news-1.nsf/0/24830CB317A6000280257A0F005835EB?OpenDocument
This company had striking similarities to Tullett Brown on the surface.
Let’s compare our company to the one being discussed above:
· Both firms were incorporated near the same time
· Both firms were run and operated by brothers of similar ages
· Both firms operated in both land and carbon credits for investment
· Both firms operated in London
· Both firms raise circa £5,000,000
· Both firms were closed within months of each other
BUT ONLY ONE FIRM COMMITTED FRAUD AND IT WASNT OUR COMPANY!!
The brothers in the case above were given custodial jail sentences, went on to commit more fraud, and were jailed again.
The difference between them and us?
-
No faces splashed across a national newspapers
-
No interest to cover the story from any national newspapers
-
No harassment from journalists 10 years later
-
No pointless lies written in blogs from investigators
-
Very few newspaper articles compared to the 50+ written about the Nwikpos
Where were the ‘investigative journalists’ Penman, Hetherington and Levene? In fact, where were any of the British press? They must have all had the day off.
Where was Andrew Penman with hidden photographer laying in wait at their homes?
Where was the famous case Wikipedia entry, next to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann etc.?
Where was their own dedicated Wikipedia page?
Wheres the constant articles spanning 10 years?
The sad truth is that they had white skin so they got a pass. Even though they committed fraud.
The brothers of Nigerian descent operated their business with integrity and took extra steps to ensure client safety, yet we were marched outside and publicly executed by the media!
Nearly every national newspaper covered the Tullett Brown story. Yet there was no crime, no criminal court, no jail sentence and we were called scammers and treated like criminals.
In writing this, we couldn't find any national newspaper articles concerning this case above from 2012 at all. Only a few blogging websites made a mention. How is this possible?
EVEN AFTER COMMITTING FURTHER CRIME AND BEING JAILED AGAIN, THERE A BARELY ANY ARTICLES FROM THE NATIONAL PRESS ON THIS.
Andrew Penman of the Mirror did write an article on the latest fraud. Interestingly, even though the first half of the article discusses the brothers, there are no photos of them. Instead the article is centered on the Asian ‘Ring Leader’ complete with photos.
We see this level of racism in the mainstream constantly.
As an example, look at how the Daily Mail chose to report almost identical stories regarding two young premier league footballers (team mates) who bought homes for their respective mothers. The black player’s story is written in a completely negative light and his name isn't even mentioned in the title whilst the white player is called a 'starlet' and is viewed in a much more positive light.
This is so racist it makes my blood boil! But at the same time, it’s subtle and could easily be missed if you are not paying attention. You need to look at these stories side by side, and then the inherent racism becomes obvious.
Check out the headlines for both stories below:
Does everyone see the problem here?
In 2015 the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, announced in her inaugural speech that if you are black then you are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. To me, it's obvious that this is not only true in the criminal justice system but also the mainstream media. This harsher treatment is also true when it comes to reporting in the press.
What is driving these journalists to do this?
I am no longer baffled by this because it is strikingly obvious what is driving these journalists and investigators to do this. What type of human being becomes fully aware of the information and evidence on this website but then still has a burning desire to lie to the world by claiming that Tullett Brown and the Nwikpos are scammers? Its called institutional racism and the system is rotten to the core.
Never in a million years would they put this level of time, energy, effort and resources into this had we been white. This is easily proven with the case discussed above and countless other real fraud cases perpetrated by white siblings where the national press have shown virtually no interest in covering the case, let alone the 10 year hate campaign. Tullett Brown committed no crime and acted lawfully and with integrity.
Another example of how this sad system works today!
Look at this headline taken from an article written in the Mail on Sunday in August 2021. Tony Hetherington wrote it and the article is titled:
‘AT LAST, WATCHDOG BARKS AND “LOAN NOTE” FIRM FACES COLLAPSE.
This article is just another excuse to drag up the lies from the past, 10 years after the event. I believe that if I were white, he wouldn’t bother and would leave us alone because he is very aware that there is nothing interesting to report.
This was a legitimate company incorporated by my partner Catherine Lyall. We were working alongside a leading UK housing developer to offer their products and services. After all, we are still entitled to work in whichever profession we choose!
A landing page website was created for us using generic images (standard practice with landing pages). My very sad, racist neighbour finds out about Finco Investments and calls both the FCA and Tony Hetherington of the Daily Mail. The FCA issued a warning on their website concerning Finco. I’m assuming this was based on whatever nonsense my sad neighbour told them.
Unaware of my sad neighours involvement, I called the FCA to ask about why they issued a warning and they explained that this was because the wording on our website was incorrect. We then had a lengthy consultation with the FCA, which lasted more than a week. One particular call was step by step guidance on what was needed for our website as well as directing us to suitable websites displaying the correct information. We gave them details of our plan and our development partners via email. After reviewing our information, the FCA confirmed that they were happy for us to continue our work.
They were very helpful and assisted us with rectifying the wording issue on the website. They then removed the warning from their website. That's the full story in a nutshell.
Three months later, we get a letter from Tony Hetherington (TH) - SEE HERE.
There he goes again…pretending that the enquiry is from a genuine reader when he knows full well he has been contacted by my sad racist neighbour who gave him our address and other personal details.
See our response via email HERE.
Even though it was made clear to TH that we knew his source was my sad racist neighbour and that we had already had a consultation with the FCA who were happy (AND the most important fact of all being that Finco Investments was not only legitimate but was a dormant company and had never traded and never had a bank account), he still went on to write his shameful article. For reasons unknown, he tries to give the reader the impression that Finco was up to no good and was foiled and forced to close by the FCA.
THE ARTICLE FAILS TO MENTION OUR WEEK LONG CONSULTATION WITH THE FCA (INITIATED BY US!) WHICH INVOLVED NUMERUOS TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS AND EMAILS. AND THE FACT THAT WE DISCLOSED ALL LOAN NOTE INFORMATION TO THE FCA WHO WERE HAPPY FOR US TO CONTINUE OUR WORK.
This is quite a significant detail to miss out, but totally understandable when you are dealing with institutional racism.
See Article here
The pattern repeats. No wrongdoing but make us look like criminals anyway..
How does a dormant company with no bank account "face collapse"?
How sad is that? He is prepared to write a completely misleading article with zero consideration for the effect it would have upon us. As far as he was concerned, this was another great story created from pure provable fabrication.
These are the FACTS:
● Finco never traded.
● Finco never had a bank account.
● Finco had a full consultation with the FCA, which included us presenting all information about our loan note offerings
including details of our loan note provider. This included an information memorandum, brochure and other documents.
● The FCA were fully satisfied with what we were doing and even assisted us with the correct small print on the documentation.
● At this point, they removed the warning and notified all third parties.
● We decided not to proceed with Finco
As Tony isn't going to tell you about our consultation with the FCA (THREE MONTHS BEFORE HIS LETTER), I thought I would provide the evidence below. Tony would rather tell you we “sidestepped the FCA”.
SEE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE FCA MONTHS BEFORE THE HETHERINGTON ARTICLE.
What you have seen above is us openly working alongside the FCA so our risk warnings and documentation met the required standard. A completely different picture from the fairytale that Tony Hetherington wrote in he's article. What is driving Hetherington to do this?
The article is just another excuse to drag up the lies from the past in an attempt to create further damage and destruction wherever possible.
Ask yourself, why would a scam company risk having any communication with the FCA?
If Finco was out to commit fraud on the public, wouldn't it make more sense to just call the police to bring about an investigation?
It's worth noting that Catherine Lyall is an absolute pillar of our local community, loved by everyone, is involved in charities and volunteers her time for noble causes and has always put others first without exception! Tony Hetherington's article is laughable.
Is this really what journalism has come to? Going out of his way to mislead the public and to continue with a 10-year-old racist narrative that he knows wasn't even true in the first place. Or knowingly acting as hired muscle for my sad racist neighbour!
What a sad state of affairs!
This is not journalism, its racism!
Final Thoughts
call a spade a spade
NONE OF THE EVIDENCE ON THIS WEBSITE ABOVE WAS PRESENTED TO THE CIVIL COURT.
Now that things have been placed in their correct context I’m sure you can now see that this is nothing more than a combined effort by the press and government to make us look like criminals. They may not have liked the investments or us but thats not an excuse for the extremely poor standard of journalistic practices as seen above. Our investments were legal, we offered them in a compliant manner and we made absolutely sure the investors knew what they were getting into and understood the risks. This is clearly not the definition of a scam.
Even to this very day they are so desperate to rewrite the history books that Tullett Brown's dedicated wikipedia page has now doubled down and is actually claiming that Tullett Brown was engaged in fraud (need to be careful there..). It has to be said, a dedicated wikipedia page for a case such as this is unprecedented. It's just another embarrassingly obvious example of over-the-top vindictive racism by closeted bigots pretending to be journalists. They really are prophetic! As I said in the opening segment, no amount of lies or institutional racism can do anything to hold back the truth.
This is what racism looks like today. If you are looking for skinheads, drainpipe jeans and Dr Martens™ boots then you are mistaken. Institutional racism is deeply woven into the fabric of our society and allows imposters to take up respectable positions in top professions so they can change narratives to effectively brainwash the public with racial stereotyping. This will often go unchecked and unnoticed. Journalism clearly needs to change. The old school, lazy, fleet street, phone hacking generation need to go and be replaced with a fresher and more diverse group that better represents the people they write stories about.
We were three black brothers operating an investment business in the city of London employing many people and making lots of noise. We were doing the very thing that extremely narrow minded bigoted people would say was impossible. The scammer narrative was the key for their agenda to show everybody that for all the success that the Nwikpos had achieved had actually been ill gotten gains from boiler room scams. Almost as if to say, go back you where you belong - they were only ever scammers, so nothing to see here.
The "get the Nwikpos" memo meant that we had to be stopped at all costs. Even if it meant using dirty underhand tactics. It’s called institutional racism. The concerted efforts by the government and media to obliterate our family name based on a bunch of lies and sensationalism just go to show what lengths they will go to. I will repeat - Tullett Brown committed no crime and acted lawfully and with integrity.
I've tried to be as open as possible in writing the content for this website including leaving all of the original information intact. Even though I'm sure eagle-eyed journalists will pick up on something to make a deal out of, the fact is that we tried to run our business in a compliant manner. We weren't perfect and made mistakes along the way, just like any other business, but the scammer narrative is ridiculous.
The government and journalists may argue that they are entitled to their belief that our products are unsuitable. This is their opinion and is not fact. We beg to differ. There is enough information on this website, placed in the correct context to show that there was a very solid argument to be had from our side.
What is very sad is that even ten years on people read this stuff and think it is the truth. In reality, they are looking through the distorted lenses of what I believe are institutionally racist journalists that wish to tell a story the way they think it should be told. They wish their version could be true! The truth doesn't even come into it.
I am 42 years old and grew up on a council estate in East London. I have seen plenty of racism in my time. But this institutional stuff is off the scale. When the Government, media, journalists and even our bankers combined their efforts to fight tooth and nail to close a company that was clearly operating legitimately and compliantly just shows how bad the problem of institutional racism is. Everybody working in lock-step without anybody actually stopping to ask the question.......Wheres the hard evidence of intentional wrong doing?
Scammers and fraudsters in this area of investment have been caught and duly punished with custodial jail sentences. The press has found a way to give this same status to innocent men based on the colour of their skin.
The role that carbon credits play today in the climate change agenda cannot be underestimated. It’s my view that we probably have a global carbon tax where individuals are taxed at the purchase level (like another VAT). Carbon credits have been an investment tool for institutions for many years that continue to sell at a significant profit.
Green belt land will continue to be reclassified for housing development in areas where new homes are needed. Green belt landowners will continue to make fortunes. Many companies are flourishing today that sell restricted green belt land to private investors. If this is fraudulent, then why are they still operating today?
The evidence I have provided here is irrefutable. Not only did we act lawfully, but we also took extra steps that were way beyond what was necessary at the time to make sure our clients were well informed. None of that matters when you're black.
Our clients lost money, not because of an elaborate fraud perpetrated by Nigerians but due to the Insolvency Service's decision to withhold all of this information and proceed wind up the company even though it’s obvious that we were acting lawfully and compliantly. We were in the process of expanding our business to facilitate potential exit plans for our clients in the future. They needed a scapegoat as winding up Tullett Brown would leave our clients high and dry. We matched their needs perfectly. Yes, I feel sad for our clients but it was never our decision to close Tullett Brown.
We did have the opportunity to present this information to the civil court but as you have seen, the Insolvency Service’s collusion with Barclays Bank along with stress made that process extremely difficult.
One could understand if there was a string of complaints from customers who felt they had been scammed, and that the authorities would take action. This is distinctly different to investigating and closing a company because the name above the door doesn't fit.
It’s worth noting that during our meetings with the Insolvency Service, all they kept asking was, “Why would you want to set up a different business while operating Tullett Brown?” This was referring to Carvier and Foxstone Carr. I was astounded by this because even though thousands of new businesses grow in exactly this manner every day, it was inconceivable to them that we had genuine intent to grow the group of businesses in the way that we had. And I'm sorry to have to keep reverting to this but this is because, in their mind, we did not fit the stereotype of successful business people so they just couldn't accept that we were genuinely expanding our business for legitimate purposes.
I'm UNDER NO ILLUSION. Of course, I am aware of the horror stories of real scams that have taken place in this industry and others. But as you have seen, none of those has anything to do with Tullett Brown or related companies.
My very final thought
News should be decentralised, censorship-resistant and on the blockchain. Never should a small group of media companies get to decide what news you hear or what the day’s top stories will be. News is too precious a commodity to be held in the hands of the few. It's like a living organism and top stories should naturally find their way to their rightful position based on demand and contribution by regular people with boots on the ground and not biased, sexist or racist journalists and corporate media.
News is for everybody and anybody should be able to contribute. That way we would get a much clearer and truer picture of what is going on in the world.
The Government and the Mainstream media are not the arbiters of truth. They have proven over time be the worst of the worst when it come to honesty and integrity. They will say and do whatever suits them whenever it suit them. I recently remember the British public being unable to attend funerals with more than 6 people and many loved ones were forced to die alone in hospitals while members of the government held parties in Downing Street and broke their own rules. These people are sick.
Our treatment was an absolute disgrace but is unsurprising when you are dealing with racism!
It's only now that we are seeing changes and a zero-tolerance attitude toward racism in our society which is why I now feel comfortable speaking about this after so long.
It's not what you say in life, it's what you do. Nobody ever admits to being racist. It's their actions that tell you everything you need to know!
Never in your life will you see such harsh treatment delivered to a company with white owners who are innocent of any crime that can produce this much evidence to prove their integrity.
Tullett Brown committed no crime. We acted lawfully and with integrity. Its shareholders (The Nwikpo brothers) were called scammers because they were black.
Daniel Nwikpo