Sheleg is the current Treasurer of the Conservative Party. He is the only one without a Wikipedia biography; an interesting omission. [ UPDATE: It was created on 2019-12-11 after the Eye exposed him - see #Ehud Sheleg ex Wiki ] But fortunately Private Eye cures that problem. You might expect him to understand money to be competent, even, perhaps honest too. But the Tories are being grossly mismanaged by Theresa May, treasonous architect of the Brexit foul up so perhaps it makes sense - to her if no one else. But back to Sheleg, a Jew in the art dealing business. Selling Degenerate Art is a good way to get rich if your customers are fools with more money than sense. He had a string of businesses that went broke, leaving creditors to whistle for their money. This sort of thing is sometimes called Asset Stripping. It has not left him poor, just his victims. His brother was in the #Binary Options Racket.
Others are out there telling us things. Private Eye is not the only one. There is Guido Fawkes - see #New Tory Treasurer is Director of 7 Companies With Overdue Accounts. Another is Finance Uncovered, which tells us about one of his peculiar friends - see #Tory party treasurer’s brother and business partner was involved in now-banned binary options industry.
Is the ugly truth about who really runs the country public knowledge? Who had heard of Sheleg before the Eye fingered him? The Occidental Observer tells us about Unexamined, Unquestioned, Unchallenged Jewish Power in Brave New Britain.
His successor in office was Pakistani, Malik Karim, a greed driven chancer - see Tory treasurer 'to make a fortune from the sale of LV to US private equity firm' ex Daily Mail.
To be fair Sheleg seems to have stayed out of prison so far. This could change. It turns out that the Eye annoyed the wonderful people who run #Legatum, a finance outfit - see more from the #Legatum Group
Sheleg was fingered again in file:///C:/Users/Mike/Desktop/Data/Private Eye/PE-1547-14.pdf also:-
file:///C:/Users/Mike/Desktop/Data/Private Eye/1569-7.pdf
He walked away as Treasurer in September 2021, houses in Mayfair, Hampstead & Redington Road, bunged the Tories £3.5 million, at it with Miss Ukraine aka Liliya Kopytova & then Mrs S. Her old man was the money wallah in Ukraine where corruption is SOP. Brandon Lewis got him a knighthood. Brandon got £10,000.
Ehud Sheleg ex Wiki
Sir Ehud “Udi” Sheleg (Hebrew: אהוד שלג; born November 1955)[1] is a British-Israeli businessman, art dealer and political figure.[2][3]Early life
Sheleg was born in Tel Aviv. His father served with the Royal Air Force in the Second World War.[4]Career
Sheleg is a director of the Halcyon Gallery in London. It is 50% controlled through a British Virgin Islands company by the Tov Settlement, the Sheleg family trust. He has donated over GB£3 million to the Conservative Party, and organised fundraisers for Boris Johnson while Johnson was Mayor of London.[5]In July 2019 he was appointed a Knight Bachelor in the 2019 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours and was named by Boris Johnson as the new Treasurer of the Conservative Party.[6][7]
Controversies
Sheleg's brother Ran was involved in a binary options scandal; Ehud claimed no knowledge. Commenting on the appointment of Sheleg as treasurer, Private Eye reported:"Our special report earlier this year revealed not just Sheleg's close relations with Moscow, hosting Russia’s ambassador at the height of post-Crimea-invasion sanctions in 2015, but also his major deal with organised-crime-connected figures in establishing a Cyprus outlet of Halcyon the same year. At a minimum, due diligence appears not to be Sheleg’s strong suit. The Eye’s report also showed how Sheleg's Halcyon company had filed erroneous accounts (not great for a party treasurer), and how in 2009 it had liquidated one of its subsidiary companies (high street art chain Castle Galleries), walking away from £4m of debts and simply carrying on the business under a new company."
Private Eye also wrote about Sheleg's track record of “unfiled accounts, unpaid suppliers, investigations and VAT penalties from HM Customs and Excise, along with millions of pounds in dodged tax”. His habit of dissolving companies and avoiding liabilities earned him the nickname “Alka Seltzer”.[8]
In 2010 Sheleg was involved in a court case involving a missing Rolf Harris painting; a judge branded him “personally and dishonestly responsible for its loss” before the case was overturned on appeal.[9]
Personal life
Sheleg has been married twice: his first wife was English, and he married his second in 2014.[4][10]
Private Eye HP Sauce Dissolution dis-honours in PE 1492 tells us that before he donated £2 million to the Conservatives and became the party’s treasurer, Ehud “Udi” Sheleg, owner of the Halcyon Gallery in Mayfair, dissolved so many companies that he got the nickname “Alka Seltzer”.
New Tory Treasurer is Director of 7 Companies With Overdue Accounts
The new Treasurer of the Conservative Party is a director of seven companies which are late filing their accounts, Guido can reveal. Ehud Sheleg, who runs a Mayfair art gallery, is set to be appointed to the role after giving the Tories half a million pounds before the last election. Sheleg is a director of The Halcyon Gallery Ltd, Washington Green Fine Arts Group, Artica Galleries, Halcyon Fine Art Group Holdings, Washington Green Retail and Halcyon Fine Art Group Ltd, all of whose accounts were due last month and have not been filed according to the Companies House website. Another company of which Sheleg was a director, Goldend Ltd, was struck off after failing to file its accounts or confirmation statement on time. The six companies which are still active now face potential fines totalling thousands of pounds. Bodes well…
Tory party treasurer’s brother and business partner was involved in now-banned binary options industry - Finance Uncovered
QUOTE
The brother and business partner of new Tory party co-treasurer Ehud Sheleg, was involved in a company promoting a controversial online investment industry that was later associated with serious fraud.An investigation by Finance Uncovered, Private Eye and The Times of Israel has found that for three years, Ehud’s brother Ran was part of a company that marketed binary options – an industry largely run out of Israel.
Binary options were promoted as a form of financial product to thousands of investors around the world, but their sale was halted by European and Israeli regulators last year when it was found that the industry was rife with fraud.
A senior Israeli police officer said in 2017 “binary options caused Israel’s crime organisations to become significantly stronger”
UNQUOTE
Trust a Jew? Not me.
Jew Infiltrates Tory Party
The JC, a media operation run by Jews tells us that Sheleg was inserted into the Conservative Party by Mick Davis, a Jew that works the Holocaust® Racket.
New Tory Treasurer Was Involved In Legal Battle Over Missing Rolf Harris Painting [ 18 May, 2018 ]
QUOTE
New Tory treasurer Ehud Sheleg was involved in a legal battle over a missing Rolf Harris painting that saw one judge brand him “personally and dishonestly responsible for its loss” before the case was overturned on appeal.The Conservatives have appointed Sheleg treasurer of the Conservative Party in a job share with the party’s chief executive Sir Mick Davis. The art collector and owner of the Halcyon Gallery in Mayfair donated more than £550,000 to the Conservatives before last year’s general election.
Sheleg, also known by his nickname Udi, was embroiled in a legal battle in 2010 after a subsidiary of his art business was accused by a widow of losing a Rolf Harris painting that her late husband had entrusted to it for safekeeping. The painting named Lovers on the Seine II was said to be worth £95,000 in 2005, nine years before Harris was found guilty on twelve counts of indecent assault.
A judge initially found in against Sheleg’s Halcyon Galleries business, calling him an “éminence grise” who knew “full well where the painting is or where it has gone and that he is personally and dishonestly responsible for its loss”, before the verdict was overturned on appeal leaving widow Maxine Hardy with a £200,000 legal bill.
Following the conclusion of the legal battle the Sunday Express issued an appeal for any information on the painting’s whereabouts, but to date there have been no reports suggesting that the artwork has been found.
UNQUOTE
Being called a thief by a Judge might be thought embarrassing by most people; being a Treasurer dealing with millions make it worse but then the word Tory does mean thief. The value of a painting is the price that someone is willing to pay and Rolf's offerings will have gone down with his reputation. He will be in prison for a long time yet. In fact Sheleg in the carefully posed mug shot looks nice enough. The best conmen do.
New Tory Treasurer Hands Party £750,000 As It Rakes In Twice As Much As Labour In Donations [ 30th August 2018 ]
QUOTE
Ehud Sheleg handed over the huge sum just weeks after donating another £500,000 to Tory coffers.The Electoral Commission revealed that the Conservatives received £4,880,201 between the start of April and the end of June, compared to Labour’s £2,121,163.
Mr Sheleg's £750,000 donation made him the largest single donor to any party over the three-month period.
The Israeli-born businessman, a long-term supporter of the Conservatives, is set to become the party’s treasurer in early September.
Mr Sheleg, who is the owner of the Halcyon art gallery in London, has become a major Tory benefactor in recent times, having also handed the party £250,000 in the run-up to last year's general election.
The second highest Tory donation came from businessman Anthony Martin, who handed them £250,000.
Meanwhile, the bulk of Labour donations once again came from the unions, with Unite, GMB and Usdaw pitching in just short of £1.5m between them.
The figures show the gap between the main two parties has narrowed since the last quarter, when Theresa May’s party raked in £4.7m – over three times Labour's £1.4m.
The Liberal Democrats received the third largest amount of donations at £594,927, with £234,347 coming from multinational firm, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Ukip meanwhile took in £114,044, while the SNP received £62,103 - both major boosts on last quarter when neither party surpassed the threshold before donations are reported by the Commission.
Meanwhile the Alliance party, the Lib Dems’ sister party in Northern Ireland, benefitted most in the province by taking in £36,561, with the only other party forced to declare being Sinn Fein, who took in £17,000.
In total £8,405,500 was declared in donations to parties from mainland Britain – significantly higher than the previous three quarters, which each totted up to below £7m.
UNQUOTE
This is useful money. Sheleg bought his way into power. As Gilad Atzmon, an honest Jew told us that Israelis realised that it is cheaper to buy the entire Western political system than buy a single tank. I suspect that bribes cost a lot more than the million plus dollars for a modern American tank but the basic point is sound.
Legatum Group's response to Private Eye magazine's article, 21 February 2019 The Legatum Group
This is
a response to the profile piece published in the 21st February edition of
Private Eye, titled “The Art of Politics – Man in the Eye Special – Ehud
Sheleg”, written in collaboration with Finance Uncovered and the Times of
Israel.
The article refers to the Legatum Institute and Christopher Chandler, and contains numerous inaccurate or false statements about them. We have summarised the key errors below.
The Issue
The article and the
sub-article on page 5 of the publication, titled “A case for Lewis”, repeat
demonstrably false and defamatory statements about Christopher Chandler.
Wherever other publications, blogs and individuals have done the same, we
have sought redress, whether through legal actions or via the administrative
and regulatory process that the Independent Press Standards Organisation
process affords when this is available. Eleven out of twelve actions that we
have initiated have been resolved in our favour, with two other actions
currently continuing. The only reason why these untrue and defamatory
statements remain in the public discourse is because the members of
Parliament who made the statements did so under the protection afforded by
Parliamentary privilege.
We have made repeated attempts to engage with the MPs, to demonstrate factually and conclusively that their statements were patently false and give them the opportunity to correct the record. Sadly, they have all steadfastly refused to engage. By way of example, Christopher Chandler has written three personal letters to Bob Seely MP, and our mutual contacts have made over 20 informal appeals to Mr Seely since May 2018, notifying him of our desire to share crucial facts and evidence with him that would allow him the opportunity to do the right thing and help to restore an innocent man’s reputation by making a correction on the record in the House of Commons. No response has been forthcoming.
Responses to the erroneous statements
1. The Private Eye reports: “… his brother Christopher (owner of the hard-Brexit pushing Legatum Institute)”
Truth:
The Legatum Institute is a UK registered educational charity run by a CEO with a board of trustees. Christopher Chandler is neither the CEO nor a trustee. He does not own the Institute, and plays no part whatsoever in its management, programmatic work or research agenda. The Mail on Sunday made the same inaccurate claim as the Private Eye article for which it later had to publish a correction on 26th August 2018.
Moreover, the Charity Commission effectively confirmed the fact that the Legatum Institute is not “owned” by anyone when it found the Legatum Institute to be independent in its report published in May last year.
Regarding Brexit specifically, the fact is that none of the Legatum Group, Christopher Chandler or the Legatum Institute publicly took or supported any position on the referendum prior to June 2016. In the aftermath of the referendum, the Legatum Institute (acting independently and in line with its educational remit) simply responded by providing research and thinking on solutions that it believed could help Britain get the best outcome possible. This point has been addressed on the Legatum Institute website and the Legatum Group’s website too, in a 7th February 2018 blog post.
The New European accused Mr Chandler of being a ‘big backer of Brexit’ in an article in March 2018 and when confronted with the truth did the honourable thing by setting the record straight in a published apology.
2. The Private Eye reports that the Chandlers “made much of their money in post-Soviet Russia”
Truth:
The investments made by the Chandlers’ Sovereign group in Russia were just one chapter in a much longer story. The Chandlers’ wealth was already well established prior to investing in Russia, principally through a long history of successful business operations and investment in New Zealand, Hong Kong and Brazil, and other markets subsequently.
This point was publicly addressed in our response to an article published by the Mail on Sunday on 6th May 2018. The full statement can be seen here.
3. The Private Eye reports that the Chandlers later “co-operated in Putin-friendly changes at [Gazprom]”
Truth:
The Chandlers have never met nor cooperated with Putin in any matter whatsoever. The line from the article above is very carefully crafted but can be easily misconstrued and as such is misleading. Truth be told, the Chandlers were actually trying to do their part to bring about positive change at Gazprom that would benefit all stakeholders.
Whilst invested in Gazprom, Sovereign’s desire was to see corporate governance reforms at the company. Accordingly, it engaged with United Financial Group (“UFG”), which advised a consortium of minority investors on their investments in the company. There was never any engagement with Putin. Rather, Sovereign supported UFG, which united minority western shareholders and on their behalf had the budget, lawyers and PR capacity to undertake a sustained effort to improve and reform corporate governance at Gazprom. This is a fact confirmed by Charles Ryan, Founder and Former CEO of UFG, in a statement on 12th May 2018.
The Institutional Investor correctly recorded in 2006 that: “to combat the abuses and release the company’s value, the Chandlers backed a campaign by [Charles] Ryan’s partner, UFG chairman Boris Fyodorov, to gain a seat on Gazprom’s board and oust Vyakhirev. At the company’s annual general meeting in July 2000, Sovereign and other minority investors succeeded in getting Fyodorov elected to the board over a management candidate. By teaming up with the five government appointees, who were sympathetic to complaints about management abuses following the election of President Vladimir Putin in March 2000, Fyodorov changed the balance of power at Gazprom.”
Liam Byrne MP also made the false claim that Mr Chandler had helped to lead a coup to appoint one of Putin’s associates as the head of Gazprom in an article in the New European on 25th November 2017. Following a ruling in our favour from IPSO, the New European published a correction which can be seen here, in which they confirm they had no basis to make this claim.
Legatum addressed this claim in much more detail in a response published on our website.
4. The Private Eye reports that the Chandlers “play an important role in the capital of the companies Lukoil and Gazprom”
Truth:
Christopher Chandler plays
no role whatsoever in Lukoil or Gazprom. He has not invested in such
companies for over a decade. It is public knowledge that Sovereign Asset
Management held stakes in many Russian companies in the 1990s and early
2000s, ranging from breweries, oil and gas, steel and telecommunications.
Sovereign never owned a controlling stake or had any executive or governance
role in any Russian company – including with respect to Lukoil and Gazprom.
They were merely minority shareholders in large publicly traded companies
listed on the Russian and London stock exchanges.
5. The Private Eye reports on statements made by Liam Byrne MP that the Chandlers are allegedly “connected to money laundering”
Truth:
This is a shocking statement from a serving British member of Parliament, not only because it was (and remains) patently false, but because it is not supported by a shred of evidence, and is therefore a blatant example of an abuse of Parliamentary privilege. It is noteworthy that Mr Byrne has not repeated this statement outside the protected walls of Parliament, as he knows that were he to do so, he would be sued for defamation. The fact is that Mr Chandler is not and has never been involved in money laundering or any of the spurious claims made by Byrne and the other MPs.
This allegation, and all the allegations made by the British members of Parliament in May 2018, stem from the imagination of the thoroughly discredited Robert Eringer 15 years ago. It is crucial to understand that the entire basis for Eringer’s false claims against Christopher Chandler is rooted in his mistaken or maliciously motivated conflation of an unrelated Swiss-based group of companies with the word “Sovereign” in their corporate names – which were reportedly engaged in wrongdoing – with the similarly-named but entirely unrelated Sovereign Asset Management, which Mr Chandler co-owned and was based in Monaco. It was the Sovereign group in Zurich which was closed down by the Eidgenössischen Bankenkommission (the “EBK”) for alleged involvement in money laundering and for links with Chechen/Russian interests – nothing whatsoever to do with the Chandler brothers’ business, despite Mr Eringer’s efforts to construct a connection.
Legatum notified Mr Byrne of this in a letter to him dated 19th December 2017. The letter to Mr Byrne received no response. Instead, Mr Byrne saw fit to again link the Chandler brothers to money laundering activities under the protection of Parliamentary privilege, whilst having full knowledge of the truth. The fact that Mr Eringer got this so wrong is evidenced even further by the letter received from the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Canton of Zurich dated 19th October 2018. The Chief Public Prosecutor had investigated the Swiss-based Sovereign group in 2002, and these companies were shut down by the Swiss authorities shortly thereafter. In his letter, the Chief Public Prosecutor provides unequivocal written confirmation that there was no relationship between the Swiss-based Sovereign and Mr Chandler’s Monaco-based Sovereign – a fact that is further substantiated by the Decision of the Swiss Federal Banking Commission, dated September 2002, which examines the Swiss case in detail but makes no mention whatsoever of Mr Chandler. The prosecutor’s letter was also covered in detail by Buzzfeed in their 13th November 2018 article.
In addition, this claim was also repeated by Borderlex.eu, a fringe blog covering trade policy, in 2017. The author published a retraction and apology shortly afterwards.
6. The Private Eye reports that the Chandlers were “linked to longstanding… Russian figures who could be linked to organised crime” and that they were “linked to a Chechen mafia figure”
Truth:
At no time has Christopher Chandler ever engaged with any figures linked to organised crime – whether in Russia or anywhere else. Furthermore, he never knew or met the ‘Chechen mafia figure’ referenced, and has no connections whatsoever with him – nor any other Chechens or alleged ‘mafia figures’, for that matter.
Again, it is evident that these allegations stem from Robert Eringer’s monumental case of mistaken identity – as it was the unrelated Sovereign group in Zurich which was closed down by the EBK for alleged involvement in money laundering and for links with Chechen/Russian interests.
We will continue to protect our reputation in order to run our global asset management business which supports some of the most innovative and impactful philanthropic and humanitarian efforts in the world.
Israeli-born Tory donor Ehud Sheleg 'is to be party's new treasurer'
QUOTE
An Israeli-born businessman who has donated hundreds of thousands to
the Conservative Party is expected to be appointed its treasurer.
Ehud Sheleg, who is director of the Halcyon Gallery in Mayfair, is to be handed the role of increasing donations made to the party.
Sir Mick Davis, Conservative chief executive, had previously also handled the role of party treasurer – but the role is expected to now be split, with fund-raising handled by Mr Sheleg, who is known as 'Udi'.
In January 2017, the art expert and collector registered his first donation to the Conservative Party when he gave £50,000. Last May, ahead of the general election, Mr Sheleg donated a further £500,000 to the party. The Halcyon Gallery was last year behind plans to erect a sculpture "dedicated to Mother Nature" in London's Trafalgar Square.
As chief executive of the gallery, Mr Sheleg said the project, for which plans were submitted to Westminster Council, would be a “win, win, win situation” for the council, the public, and the Italian artist Lorenzo Quinn.
“People can go to museums and galleries to see art, but when it is immersed and embedded into public life the experience is enhanced,” said Mr Sheleg. “The local authority gets a piece of public art installed for free, and of course it raises awareness for the artist.”
The Halcyon has hosted exhibitions by artists including Andy Warhol and Bob Dylan. Mr Sheleg, who is now based in north London , is said to be a donor to several community charitable organisations .
Sir Mick, former chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, was appointed chief executive of the Conservatives in June last year following the general election, and had been appointed treasurer in February 2016.
The Conservative Party said it did not comment on appointments.
UNQUOTE
Aren't we lucky?
InPublishing Paul Foot Award – shortlist announced
QUOTE
Richard Brooks, Private Eye
Conservative Party Treasurer Investigation
Brooks’ investigation of Ehud Sheleg, the Conservative Party
Treasurer and director of the Halcyon art gallery revealed a Byzantine and
outlandish world of bizarre art deals, unpaid bills, dodgy Russian
connections, and dodgy dealings all the way to Buckingham palace. Judges
praised Brooks’ deep dive into the unknown but influential figure’s
complicated financial arrangements.
UNQUOTE
The truth has its uses.
The Oligarchs Who Fund The Tory Project Revealed
QUOTE
THE TORIES have “serious questions to answer” over lavish donations
to the party by the wife of a former Putin associate, Labour said today.
The Conservatives received £4.7 million in donations in the first three months of 2018, more than three times the £1.49m pulled in by Labour between January 1 and March 31, data from the Electoral Commission has revealed.
But £100,000 of the Tories’ total came from Lubov Chernukhin, whose husband Vladimir was Russia’s deputy finance minister during Vladimir Putin’s first term as president, before settling in London in 2006.
Ms Chernukhin has now donated over £620,000 to the Tories since June 2012, including a payment of £160,000 in July 2014 to play tennis with Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and £30,000 this February to have dinner with Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson.
She also tried to donate £10,000 to the party in April 2012, but was deemed an “impermissible donor” by the Electoral Commission.
Shadow Cabinet Office minister John Trickett called on Theresa May to “explain what checks have taken place, and why her party has accepted money from individuals with links to Putin’s regime, despite her promises.”
He said: “Russia-related donations to the Tory Party is the gift that keeps on giving, but there are serious questions to ask.
“Despite repeated promises that the Prime Minister doesn’t want ‘business as usual’ with Russia, the Conservatives have accepted another £100,000 from the wife of a former minister in Putin’s government.”
He added that, after Mr Johnson was “forced to admit” playing tennis with Ms Chernukhin in the aftermath of the alleged attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in March, the Foreign Secretary had “promised that checks on such donations would take place.”
A Tory spokesman told the Star: “All donations to the Conservative
Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral
Commission, published by them and comply fully with the law.”
The Tories also accepted £500,000 from Mayfair art gallery director Ehud Sheleg, who has contributed more than £1m to the party in the last year and is tipped to be its next treasurer.
Former Tory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas, who was forced to resign in 2012 after being caught in an undercover sting offering access to prime minister David Cameron for up to £250,000, also gave £114,500 to the Conservatives.
The party also received £12,500 from Crescent Petroleum chief executive Abdul-Majid Jafar, who has donated just under £400,000 to the Tories in the last eight years, and £21,000 from Amjad Bseisu, the boss of oil exploration company EnQuest, who has given £320,000 in the last five years.
Long-standing donor Alexander Temerko — who has given the Tories and their MPs more than £650,000 in the past eight years — contributed £53,000, and former Vitol chief executive Ian Taylor donated £50,000, meaning he has given more than £1.3m in seven years.
Ms May’s party has received more than £500,000 from senior oil executives since she took power in July 2016.
Meanwhile, Broadland Properties, chaired by Yorkshire-based property mogul John Guthrie — said to be worth £281m — coughed up £50,000 and billionaire businessman Michael Hintze threw in £5,000.
The Electoral Commission said the total reported to it by all parties
amounted to £6.9m, £2.4m lower than donations accepted in the same
period in 2017, despite the reporting period ending just weeks before
the May 3 local elections in England, and last year’s period preceding
the April announcement of the snap general election.
UNQUOTE
These comedians want to run the country but they can't or won't run a company.
Binary Options ex Wiki
A binary option is a
financial
exotic option in which the payoff is either some fixed monetary amount
or nothing at all.[1][2]
The two main types of binary options are the cash-or-nothing binary option
and the asset-or-nothing binary option. The former pays some fixed amount of
cash if the option expires
in-the-money while the latter pays the value of the underlying security.
They are also called all-or-nothing options, digital options
(more common in forex/interest rate markets), and fixed return options
(FROs) (on the
American Stock Exchange).[3]
While binary options may be used in theoretical asset pricing, they are prone to fraud in their applications and hence banned by regulators in many jurisdictions as a form of gambling.[4] Many binary option outlets have been exposed as fraudulent.[5] The U.S. FBI is investigating binary option scams throughout the world, and the Israeli police have tied the industry to criminal syndicates.[6][7][8] The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) have banned retail binary options trading.[9] ASIC considers binary options as a “high-risk” and “unpredictable” investment option.[10]
The FBI estimates that the scammers steal $10 billion annually worldwide.[11] The use of the names of famous and respectable people such as Richard Branson to encourage people to buy fake "investments" is frequent and increasing.[12] Articles published in the Times of Israel newspaper explain the fraud in detail, using the experience of former insiders such as a job-seeker recruited by a fake binary options broker, who was told to "leave [his] conscience at the door".[13][14] Following an investigation by the Times of Israel, Israel's cabinet approved a ban on sale of binary options in June 2017,[15] and a law banning the products was approved by the Knesset in October 2017.[16][17]
On January 30, 2018, Facebook banned advertisements for binary options trading as well as for cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings (ICOs).[18][19] Google and Twitter announced similar bans in the following weeks.[20]
Legatum ex Wiki
Legatum Limited, also known as Legatum, is a private investment
firm, headquartered in
Dubai,
United Arab Emirates.[1]
Legatum is a partnership that uses its own funds to invest globally.[2][3][4]
The firm also invests in activities to promote entrepreneurship and free
enterprise as well as anti-slavery, health and education initiatives.[5][6][7][8][1]
......................
POLICY
Legatum Institute
Legatum Foundation is a sponsor of the Legatum Institute, an independent
non-partisan policy, advisory and advocacy organization based in
London.[35]
Christopher Chandler ex Wiki
Christopher Chandler (born 1960[1])
is a New Zealand-born, Maltese[5]
billionaire and founder of Dubai-based
investment company
Legatum.
According to
The Guardian, he has a net worth of $1.7 billion.[3]
Born in Matangi, Chandler is the son of beekeepers Robert and Marija Chandler, who launched and operated Chandler House, a department store in Hamilton, New Zealand.[6] He attended the University of Auckland, earning a degree in law in 1982.[7]
In 1982, Christopher and his brother, Richard, took over the business and expanded it to ten stores, adding fashion design, manufacturing and real estate, before starting to look for international investment opportunities.[4][6]
During the Asian banking crisis, the brothers made significant investments in both Japan, including taking stakes in UHJ Holdings, Mizuho Financial Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Group.[6][7] The brothers of took a stake in South Korean refiner SK Corp., where they unsuccessfully tried to "oust" its CEO and Chairman.[6][7]
In 2002, the brothers were the fourth largest investor in Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled gas company.[8] The dog of their representative on the Board, Boris Fyodorov, was poisoned by cyanide, which allegedly may have been the result of their campaign to clean up the company's governance.[8]
Legatum is a private, multibillion-dollar investment firm that puts money into companies in developing countries as well as the world's capital markets.[4] In April 2012, Legatum acquired its own building in the Dubai International Finance Centre.[4]
Private Eye
Fingers Sheleg at:-
1504/11
1538/11
Sheleg claims that Halcyon
https://www.halcyongallery.com/
http://www.halcyon.com.hk/team-profile.html in honkers finance mob
https://conflictantiquities.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/russia-reputation-laundering-europe-art-market/
https://conflictantiquities.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/russia-reputation-laundering-europe-art-market/
https://www.unz.com/freed/china-and-america-scoping-out-the-megacepts/
https://www.unz.com/freed/china-and-america-scoping-out-the-megacepts/
I’m not an advocate for socialism: I’m a voluntaryist (what is often mis-termed ‘anarcho-capitalist’), so in my book, less central authority is always better than more – even if it results in reduced standards of living (it won’t, but that doesn’t matter: if theft and coercion are wrongs, then less theft and coercion is better even if it makes you slightly poorer).
The logic is identical to the logic surrounding the abolition of slavery: it is a profound wrong, and if abolishing it results in lower output per head, then that is the required price.
To use a slightly different example: people would have more access to calories if we ate our (or each other’s) dead, but we actively choose not to.
As it turns out (and as was known prior to abolitionism) abolishing slavery doesn’t reduce productivity anyhow – it increases it, both statically (worker incentivisation) and dynamically (it’s more efficient, so more profitable, so generates faster capital stock growth and technological change).
The same would be true if we abolished government.
BUT…
It’s kinda poignant that people carry around a load of bad information about the Soviet system.
For the most part the really bad aspects of that system had no impact on the lives of the overwhelming majority of citizens – the politically-favoured benefited (as usual); the politically-connected-who-crossed-the-wrong-motherfucker were on the worst of the receiving end.
And while freedom of expression and association are important rights, the stark reality is that for 95% of the population they’re irrelevant – particularly for those at the bottom of the economic ladder in a society where 80% of the population live through subsistence-agriculture.
It’s true that parts of the Soviet political leadership used State power to do very large amounts of harm to people who weren’t direct competitors – the Holodomor being the usual example.
The Hoilodomor is (as usual) a bad example. The supposed ‘political’ cause – Stalin trying to get rid of an entire population because of Ukrainian separatism – is almost certainly nonsense: the Ukraine famine of the early 1930s occurred in the context of a USSR-wide famine, so it is best seen as a typical government example of ‘picking winners’ (in this case, ‘reallocating’ resources away from people who don’t matter, towards people who do).
.
As to economic performance: the starting point for the Soviet system (in 1917) was an output per capita that was roughly the same as the US and UK in 1850.
Then they had a brutal civil war (1917-21) that killed more people than WWI, and by 1922 output per capita was at levels roughly in line with UK and US in 1720.
(Interestingly: the USSR went back to ‘approximately’ free(ish) enterprise between 1921 and 1929, to rebuild. Their political leaders knew that free enterprise was the best system to rapidly increase living standards).
Then, there was some unpleasantness in the early 1940s that caused the death of almost 35% of their working-age male population (and 8% of their working age female population). By the end of WWII the USSR was back at 1820s-UK level output per capita. (Working age males are the primary source of output, so if one of them died it reduces output per capita more-than-proportionately).
Their growth rate overall (1917 to 1989) was actually higher than the West – in part because of the low starting level.
By 1980 per capita income in the Soviet Union was 97% of per capita income in the UK, and 66% of US income per capita. (The UK standard of living in 1980 was roughly equivalent to the US level in 1964 – because the UK was still paying back Lend Lease).
Between 1917 and 1980 the Soviet Union had a per capita growth rate of 2.9% per annum; for the US it was 2.1% and for the UK it was 1.4%.
Between 1923 (the end of the Civil War) and 1980, the Soviets had per capita growth of 4.7% a year; the US by 2.0%, and the UK by 1.8%.
So the Soviets made up the gap between 1720s US standards of living and 1964 US standards of living, in 57 years – and a third of the way through that 57 years they lost 1 working man in 3, permanently while saving Western Europe from a shouty man with a moustache.
All things considered, the Soviet system did far better than is generally understood – partly because smart people aren’t focused on the right metrics, and the masses are just fuckwits who believe what they’re told in kindergarten and on the TV.
.
Now, all of the foregoing must be read with the underlying assumption that the output mix in a socialist economy will definitely be different to, and less preferred than, the mix that would arise in a free enterprise economy
So the 1980s output mix for a Soviet citizen would be “worse” than the same dollar-value bundle in the UK or US; similarly, the UK and US (with ~35% of GDP being government at the time) would generate a worse bundle than actual free enterprise.
.
Gini coefficients were comparable: 1950-1980 the USSR had an average Gini index in the mid-to-high 20s (the UK was lower at ~23; the US, being a corrupt kleptocracy, was much higher at ~37).
These comparisons use the closest apples-to-apples data that is available – although a characterisation like “1720s standard of living” using only output-per-capita fails to account for improvements in standard of living that aren’t captured in output-per-capita – like increased hygeine, hedonically-superior goods etc – only some of which would be relevant to the USSR even as late as 1980.
.
And what also had to be borne in mind: the USSR out-grew the West, even though it was shut out of technology exchange for its entire existence. It had to develop technology endogenously (or steal it), purely because of Western hostility to its political system (which, as I’ve made clear… I do not favour).
There is almost no moral crime greater than depriving an entire country (or region) from access to industrial (as opposed to military) technology, solely because the target country has had a different political/ownership structure imposed on them.
It deprives people who have no say in it, consigning them to shorter, poorer lives – 95% of the population have no say in system-wide decisionmaking, and the people at the top will still live lives of luxury.
Refusing technology exchange to ‘punish’ a nation is literally killing the already downtrodden. Assuming that such deprivation will cause the populace to rise up and throw off the yoke is a ‘Stupid American’ idea that has never worked (the Yank Revolution was endogenous: they weren’t being held down indirectly by, say, France: in fact it was Britain who was refusing technology exchange with the Colonies).
Assuming that people will remain ignorant of underlying causes (e.g., the fact that a third party is largely responsible for their problems) is retarded. The people of the USSR were well aware of the technology gap, and were aware that they were being denied technological parity by the West. If anything, it reduced their expectations of the Soviet political class.
That’s why the USSR did not ‘implode’ because of internal strife: a common external enemy girds the populace.
Eventually the USSR went away because a new generation of political leaders recognised that ‘free-ish enterprise’ was a better mechanism to rapidly close the gap in living standards to the West. (They were largely informed by the arguments made in the aftermath of the Soviet Civil War)
They didn’t count on (((some folks))) using their positions in the imploding hierarchy, to steal anything that wasn’t tied down (shame on Gorbachev et al, for failing to read the Book of Exodus).
The only greater crime than refusing industrial-technology exchange, is bombing the target victim for the same reason (refusal to hew to the whims of the political class of the aggressor) – as the US did to most of Southeast Asia in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Conservative Party Treasurer Departs As His Company Gets Millions From Rishi
Sunak [ 23 August 2021 ]
QUOTE
The question is about the company called the Halcyon gallery which has its
offices and showroom in London’s Bond Street but is registered in the Virgin
Islands. Halcyon also uses companies registered in Hong Kong for the benefit
of billionaire customers. In the last two years, it paid out £14.4 million
in dividends to its shareholders. Ninety per cent of the shares are held by
an Israeli citizen called Ehud Sheleg.
Last week Halcyon gallery filed its accounts, and these showed that it was going bankrupt, but is now coming in for a bailout by the British taxpayer, of which I am one, to the tune of millions of pounds.
Gentle reader, the reason all this is interesting is that by registering the company in the Virgin Islands, with associated dealings through Hong Kong, Sheleg pays no British taxes. These are tax-dodging but, under Rishi Sunak, the Tory chancellor of the exchequer who has no plans to change it, legal tax havens for companies that make their millions through Britain.
The next fact is that Ehud Sheleg, an Israeli citizen, is the official treasurer of the Tory Party and having donated £3.8 million to the party was given a knighthood. Now Halcyon has applied for the millions that Mr Sunak will hand out to companies that face a crisis through the lockdown.
Will he give the taxpayers’ money to Mr Sheleg’s company, which pays no tax? He knows that Mr Sheleg is not only the treasurer of his party, but also donates large sums to it. Will those facts have any influence on Mr Sunak’s decision to give our money to this enterprise, which doesn’t employ many British citizens whose livelihoods are threatened by its bankruptcy, but does trade in “art” that is being used, through large exchanges of international currency, for non-aesthetic purposes?
Unconnected with Halcyon, I once traced an art auction company in Dubai which was using unremarkable paintings to launder black money from India and Pakistan.
So, will Rishi Sunak hand Halcyon a handout? A small bet? And the third
question is should Keele University, which honoured Britain’s current home
secretary, Priti Patel, with a degree, be investigated by an independent
body to assess its academic standards?
UNQUOTE
Farrukh Dhondy writes for the
Deccan Chronicle, the one in India. He is a jump ahead of
Private Eye because he mentions Halcyon's
impending bankruptcy. The Eye does not actually say that
Sheleg is a thieving Jew who should be in prison
but it is clearly what they think. Farrukh understands his own; they learn about
corruption with their mother's milk. His readers will not need in depth analyses
of
Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel. Ditto for
Blackmail & Bribery.