The Battler and Peter Gargan offer help for BitChute to file a civil suit against HSBC

Instead of hiring lawyers and slogging out a case in court for what could turn out to be a very long time, we show how BitChute could have a positive result very quickly,

Even though we are discussing the Bitchute situation, this discussion also shows how we can all use the law to right wrongs perpetrated against us.

The following is the transcript of our discussion:

Welcome back, Peter. Nice to see you again. mate. How are you?

I’m good. Yourself?

Very good mate. Good. We’re going to be talking about the HSBC Bank, which has stolen quite a substantial amount of money from the BitChute online video company.

Can you tell us a bit about that, please?

In the United Kingdom, there’s a theft Act of 1968, which makes it a seven-year indictable offense to steal. Now, banks aren’t allowed to take your money and not give it back to you. So, at this point, the person who started BitChute has an option to lodge what’s called a private prosecution.

Now I checked that private prosecutions are still available in the UK and I found out they are.

I also found out that certain solicitors specialize in it, and would probably be prepared to do it on a pro bono publico basis on the understanding that since 1487 the private prosecutor is entitled to half the penalty that’s inflicted, and the crown gets the rest.

It’s like a crown private public partnership. So, we’ve got a situation where Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank has taken a five-figure sum and refused to make it available to the customer. Now that’s theft. That’s just common garden theft.

Right.

The owner of BitChute is quite entitled to bring a private prosecution.

Right.

And he may do this in the magistrate’s court, but in the United Kingdom, they have a deferred prosecution agreement when it’s a corporate defendant, which HSBC is. And what that does is defers the prosecution. It goes to a judge and the judge says to the accused, You’ve got a chance to sort this out. And under normal conditions, the accused will sort it out. They’ll agree on some compensation for the damage done, and everyone’s happy. Everyone goes away and everyone’s happy.

 If they don’t, there’s an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation called O F S I. Now, if they get involved, their minimum fine is 1 million pounds. So, it’s not a small amount of money. And it’s a very interesting situation. So, what we’ve got is the owner of BitCHute can go and find a way of bringing a private prosecution. That private prosecution can be lodged, I believe, in a magistrate’s court in the United Kingdom. But then it goes to a judge for a deferred prosecution agreement after he serves the bank. It’s a bit like the case of a little boy trying to run cows into a yard when the cows won’t go, all he needs is one little blue dog to go with him and the cows go in every time.

So you’ve got to let the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank know that you have a blue dog and you’re prepared to sue him if you need to. So that’s probably about all we need to say about the bit shoot problem really.

Not entirely. So when the court considers whether to charge a company with a criminal offense, Prosecutors will have to consider two questions.

  1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction?
  2. Is it in the public interest to prosecute?

So, if the answer to both of these questions is yes, then a prosecution will ensue. Now in the UK, this can happen under the Theft Act 1968, as you mention. Chapter 60, which earns seven years in jail and is a strict liability offense. What does strict liability offense mean?

Strict liability means that once the facts are found and the fact that he hasn’t got access to his money is an undeniable fact, then the strict liability means there’s no defence. You can’t raise a defence in the face of absolute. Provable facts.

That’ll give the bank a bit of a scare, won’t it?

Oh, it works in Australia too. I had a young lady contact me and said look, the bank’s frozen my account. And I pointed out through her to the bank that was a naughty thing to do.

And within two hours she had her money.

In Australia, the government has actually passed the bank bailing act, which allows the banks to take your money if they are having a financial problem. And even worse, if you don’t access your money in a bank account for two years, they can just walk in and take your money. Now I had this happen to me just recently.

An ex-partner of mine rang me up and said, why have you stolen the money out of our joint bank account? And I said I haven’t touched it for two years.

Then the penny dropped. I said, get in touch with the bank. They have probably taken the money. And half an hour later he came back to me. Sure enough, yes, they had taken the money and they have now put it back into the bank account.

So, we’ve got to be very careful. The banks and the government are colluding.

Now also these DPAs, a deferred prosecution agreement. Some of the key features of these are that they enable a corporate body to make full reparation for criminal behavior without the collateral damage of a conviction.

So, for example, sanctions or reputation damage that could put the company out of business and destroy the jobs and investments of innocent people.   A DPA is concluded under the supervision of a judge. Who must be convinced that the DPA is in the interest of justice and that the terms are fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

And a DPA can avoid lengthy and costly trials, and they are transparent public events.

Now we also mentioned Conspiracy to fraud includes cheating the public revenue under the Theft Act 1960. False accounting, suppression of documents, dishonesty retaining a wrongful credit, unlawful fines, usury on bank loans, and repossessing property under false pretenses.

Would you agree with all of that?

Yes. Yes…. And this is why. Back in 1487, after the Battle of Bosworth Field, Henry the seventh passed the law 4 Henry VII, chapter 20 which said that in the case of an indictable offense, only a jury can decide whether it’s right or wrong.

At that time in England, judges were basically giving dispensations to wealthy clients and it was cheating their revenue. Henry the seventh put an end to it. Now that is still law the last time I looked  I was in Sydney University Library in Halsbury’s statutes of England and it was still there.

Good.

So that was as far as I’m. It’s also contained in section 44 of the Australian Crimes Act 1914.

Excellent, mate, thank you very much for that. I’m actually going to send this video to the owners of BItChute in the hope that they will take notice of it and we can help them to get their money back.

That’s a good idea because we are also beneficiaries of the fact that Ute is dedicated to free speech. Absolutely.

And publishes all sorts of stuff that a lot of people don’t really want published.

All right, mate, thank you very much and I’ll be seeing you on the other side. We’re going to talk next about how to implement a civil invoice.

Very good.

See you later.

Righto. Catch up.

Watch the video here:

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *