What readers will get from this article:
- A clear account of serious misconduct by Deputy Official Receiver Michael Bint and the Insolvency Service, including withheld evidence and false statements made to the court.
- How this misconduct directly led to a wrongful arrest warrant and exposed deep procedural failings in the UK justice system.
- The appeal and accountability processes are now underway through Citizen Intervention Global.
- Why this case matters for every citizen who depends on public institutions to act lawfully and honestly.
Why this profile: As a senior public official with powers that affect people’s liberty, reputation, and property, Mr Bint’s decision-making and candour to the courts are matters of legitimate public interest. This page is published under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the public interest, as part of ongoing efforts to expose institutional misconduct, ensure accountability, and protect citizens from abuse of power.
A Senior Official Under the Spotlight
Michael Bint is a senior civil servant within the UK Insolvency Service, having recently served as a Deputy Official Receiver. His role carries serious responsibilities, including powers that can affect a person’s liberty, reputation, livelihood, and access to justice.
With such authority comes a duty to act lawfully, honestly, and with complete candour before the courts. Yet the record shows Mr Bint has fallen catastrophically short of that standard.
This page sets out the serious allegations, public record, and documented evidence that demand transparent investigation and accountability.
A Pattern of Serious Misconduct & Criminality
The events surrounding Cooper v Official Receiver have revealed disturbing conduct by Michael Bint and other Insolvency Service officials. His actions have not only undermined due process but weaponised state power against an individual through misrepresentations, omissions, and withholding of critical evidence. Such is the seriousness of his actions that they are criminal by definition.
1. Withholding a Crucial Report
On 29 July 2025, in open court, Mr Bint admitted that the Official Receiver’s report used to justify a warrant of arrest against Mr Cooper in February 2025 was never served on Mr Cooper.
This was not a technicality. It was a blatant breach of due process. No person can defend themselves against secret evidence. To proceed on that basis is a fundamental violation of natural justice.
2. Misrepresenting Court History
Mr Bint falsely told the court that Mr Cooper’s “non-cooperation” had already been dealt with by Judge Schaffer. This was a lie.
The official court record of 26 November 2024 shows that Judge Schaffer refused to issue a warrant and instead ordered an independent medical report.
That is not a slip of the tongue. It is a wilful distortion of judicial fact made to mislead the court and bolster the Insolvency Service’s position.
3. False Statements Regarding Attendance
Bint claimed the Insolvency Service had “no indication” of whether Mr Cooper would attend the February 2025 hearing.
This is demonstrably false:
- Continuous NHS Med-3 certificates were on file and submitted in good time and faith.
- Written submissions explaining Mr Cooper’s medical incapacity were lodged.
- Advance notice of his overseas location for medical and safeguarding reasons had been provided.
- Judge Prentis himself acknowledged these facts in February.
For Mr Bint to deny this in open court is not merely misleading. It is a deliberate and unlawful act designed to influence the outcome of judicial proceedings.
4. Refusal to Correct Lies
When these misrepresentations were formally raised, the Insolvency Service, instead of accepting responsibility, doubled down. In a 29 September 2025 response, they denied wrongdoing and claimed “all relevant material was before the court.”
Such stonewalling is characteristic of an organisation that has lost its moral compass and no longer respects the principle of candour or truth.
Public Accountability Through Open Letter To Alec Pybus, Insolvency Service CEO 🔗
Public Record: This Is Not an Isolated Incident
This is not the first time Michael Bint’s conduct has come under public scrutiny.
- In the Boris Becker insolvency proceedings (2022), Mr Bint was publicly named in national media for his role in the early case administration. In court, an “oversight” involving his handling of a preliminary form was acknowledged.
- His name has appeared repeatedly in public commentary and critical reports relating to the Insolvency Service’s failings, lack of transparency, and gross negligence of duty of care.
- Articles such as A Gross Failure in Their Duty of Care by Michael Bint and the UK Insolvency Services and Extra Lessons for Karen Baldock, Dean Beale, Michael Bint & Gary Seymour have documented a sustained pattern of arrogance, negligence, and disregard for fair process.
- More recently, at a July hearing, Mr Bint was found to be purposefully misleading the court through provable falsehoods on a number of crucial facts at the hearing Cooper vs the Official Receiver.
These concerns are not fringe accusations. They are a matter of public record and directly tied to decisions that have cost taxpayers money, violated due process, and damaged lives.
The Duty of Candour: A Legal Obligation, Not an Option
The duty of candour is a cornerstone of the UK’s legal system. Public officials must act with absolute honesty and transparency, especially when appearing before a court. That means disclosing all relevant information, not cherry-picking facts to secure a convenient outcome.
Michael Bint has utterly failed this standard. The withholding of the O.R. report, false representations of judicial decisions, and misleading statements about attendance amount to serious breaches of public trust and potential misconduct in public office.
Such conduct is not merely unprofessional. It is dangerous, corrosive, and unacceptable in a democratic society governed by the rule of law.
Key Timeline of Mr Bint’s Conduct (Public Record & Allegations)
- 2017–2022: Named publicly in national reporting linked to insolvency proceedings, including Boris Becker case.
- Nov 2023 – Oct 2024: Subject of public letters and critical articles over alleged failures of duty of care.
- Feb 2025: Warrant of arrest issued against Mr Cooper based on withheld Official Receiver report.
- 29 Jul 2025: Court hearing before Judge Agnello KC — allegations of false statements and misleading the court.
- 29 Sep 2025: Insolvency Service denies wrongdoing, refuses to correct the record.
Crucial Questions Mr Bint Must Answer
- Why did you admit in court that the Official Receiver report was never served, yet allow a warrant of arrest to stand?
- Why did you misrepresent Judge Schaffer’s ruling to the court in July 2025?
- How do you justify claiming “no indication” of attendance when written medical evidence was on record and acknowledged in the previous hearing by Judge Prentis in February 2025?
- In preparation of the July hearing, did you familiarise yourself with the February hearing transcript? If so, then how did you get something so critical, such as Mr Cooper’s indication of whether he would attend or not, so wrong?
- Why has the Insolvency Service refused to correct the record or investigate your conduct given that it is provable and evidential that you have misled the court on substantial matters?
- How many more citizens have suffered similar treatment under your oversight and that of the Insolvency Service?
- For the public record, do you, Joseph Sullivan (Official Receiver), Victoria Prime (Official Receiver), Daniel Curthoys (Deputy Official Receiver), and Alec Pybus (CEO of the Insolvency Service) and the Insolvency Service as a whole have any inclination to correct the record based on your duty of care as a public officer?
This Is a Line in the Sand
The days when public officials could lie in court and hide behind institutional walls are over.
Michael Bint has abused the trust placed in him as a public servant. His actions have fuelled a miscarriage of justice, undermined judicial integrity, and deepened public distrust in the Insolvency Service.
This is why his name must be held in the full light of public scrutiny, not hidden in the shadows of bureaucracy.
When a public official chooses deception over truth, he wages war on the very justice he is sworn to uphold.
Final Word
This is part of a process of public accountability. Michael Bint’s position comes with power and that power has been abused. Until the record is corrected, and justice is done, his name will remain on public record as a case study of how state power can be misused to harm those it is meant to protect and is justified in the public interest.
The era of silent misconduct and hiding in the shadows behind institutional evil is over! Citizen Intervention Global, along with the Personal Prosecution Services UK, will shine a light on tyranny and hold individual public officers accountable for their wrong-doing.
| If you’ve been wronged by the Insolvency Service, leave a comment and share your story |
Related Articles & Sources
- A Gross Failure in Their Duty of Care by Michael Bint and the UK Insolvency Services
- Extra Lessons for Karen Baldock, Dean Beale, Michael Bint & Gary Seymour
- The Case of Kids Company – The Innocent Charity Destroyed By Insolvency Service Oppression
- Insolvency Service Rap Sheet
- Two Blatant Lies in Court, One Weaponised State: How the Insolvency Service and Michael Bint Misled the Judiciary
Legal & Editorial Disclaimer
This page compiles publicly available information, media reporting, and honestly held opinions on matters of serious public concern. Allegations remain subject to judicial determination, including ongoing Court of Appeal proceedings.
Nothing in this article is intended to prejudice or influence any court proceedings. If Mr Bint or the Insolvency Service wishes to issue a response or clarification, it will be published in full and unedited.
What this points to in my view, is the very strong possibility that the Insolvency Service ‘investigated’ Lighthouse and therefore Mr Cooper, having already made up their mind as to the outcome. While Attorney General Hermer is claiming there is no two tier system… here we have Insolvency Service employee, a senior civil servant, Michael Bint, defying the rule of law to suit his own, the Insolvency Service’s and the government’s agenda. What if the roles were reversed and Mr Cooper or anyone else lied to the court? Misrepresented the opposition side? Even lied about a judges statements on record?? The powers above from the establishment would come crashing down for arrest, contempt of court and likely more. Yet Mr Bint seems to have automatic immunity to this? He and many others ought to be held in the spotlight to either take responsibility and/or be held accountable to their crimes while the innocent victims ought to be fully compensated.
Having read the Judgement in the Kids company case and heard Boris Becker speak publicly how he was treated by the Insolvency Service,despite holding his hands up and admitting his mistakes, it is clear that this is an agency that abuses its power. It needs radical reform and to compensate those that it has abused, in the name of serving the public. I hope Mr Bint can look at his conscience and make right his wrongs in this case with Mr Cooper which appears to be in line with how the Insolvency Service operates.
Amen – sometimes, such public scrutiny and accountability can lead people to stop lying to themselves so much and confess. Here is hoping Mr Bint wakes up to the truth and repents.
That the Insolvency Service isn’t immediately concerned and acting swiftly, objectively and openly on this to resolve the issue is clear demonstration that their main concern is not what is right and just and ensuring the best safeguarding of the public. What it smacks of is cronyism and corruptly seeking to cover up for one of their own. How is that serving the public as a public agency of supposed public servants? At the very least there ought to be a clear, open and transparent investigation happening into this and any and all cases like this. But as we have learned and can be seen throughout this site, the Insolvency Service are only interested in “investigations” that will give them what they want and/or have already decided is the case. Whether it’s Lighthouse or Kids Company, or many others, we are seeing it again and again and it’s the complete dearth of responsibility and corrective action that’s so damning!
Public scrutiny of powerful government bodies is essential. If a public official has acted improperly, it’s right that this is raised and examined through proper legal and oversight channels. Accountability, transparency and due process are vital to maintaining trust in public institutions. Thank you for the work involved in putting this piece together.
Well said Jess, this is absurd that there is no accountability for such an agency, wielding such power and attacks over its own citizens!
What is frightening is Mr Bint’s apparent brazenness in behaving as he has, and his seeming lack of fear of being exposed. To me, this suggests just how much he may have gotten away with this kind of behaviour before. I hope this is a wake-up call for him, that he chooses to make things right — or, if not, that God allows the natural consequences of his actions to return to him and bring humility.
As a public servant, there is no excuse for behaving as he allegedly has. He serves the public, not the government or the Crown against the public. Even the government and the Crown exist to serve the public, not oppose them. It is not up to Mr Bint to decide what evidence should go before a court — the whole truth and nothing but the truth must be presented, especially when someone’s life, livelihood, and reputation are at stake.
This is someone who clearly has a tyrannical motive. When we called out the incompetence of both Michael Bint and Karen Baldock back in October 2023, Michael Bint was outraged by the public accountability. Michael Bint was an Official Receiver at the Insolvency Service at that point. Then he seemingly goes missing only to return as a Deputy Official Receiver. The timing of Michael Bint’s absence and demotion clearly reveals there were consequences for his shameful handling of our case.
Yet despite this, he returns in a lower position and is then still asked to handle important aspects of our case that could be abused. There’s clearly a motive to want to do whatever is possible to issue an arrest warrant on Shaun Cooper. Yet Michael Bint’s motives and actions have clearly not been investigated by the Insolvency Service and the Courts.
Yesterday I read (albeit by the BBC) that the Attorney General is outraged that people use the term “two-tier justice”.
“We don’t have a two-tiered justice system. We have one justice system, that is an independent justice system…and I think we all need to get behind it, not seek to undermine it.” – Lord Hermer, UK Attorney General (June 2025)
Yet with incidents like this we see that when people abuse their position within the justice system, then the results are clearly two tier.
It gives more credence as to why he may have been demoted from Official Receiver to Deputy Official receiver. Maybe his seniors know not to trust him with such responsibility any more, given the damage he’s caused? Yet instead of making their wrongs actually right, a simple demotion while retaining his employ… it would not be tolerated in a organisation they “investigated”, yet somehow, because of the corruption and two tier double standards, they allow themselves to get away with it. Exactly why this work, these letters and Citizen Intervention Global are needed.
The way the Insolvency Service operates is a clear example of how many establishment organisations function today.
Rather than empowering people or helping them to learn from mistakes, the system too often appears to focus on humiliation and self-promotion, where outcomes serve careers more than justice. Cases such as Cooper v the Insolvency Service, Boris Becker v the Insolvency Service, and further cases involving Michael Bint and other official receivers illustrate this pattern repeatedly.
Thank you for the transparency in exposing these practices and for highlighting the wrongdoing of officials who are meant to serve the public, not themselves.
This is not about judgement, but about truth. Actions have consequences, and I pray that Mr Bint recognises his errors, repents, and seeks to make wrongs right. Meanwhile, innocent people continue to suffer under the weight of these systems, and meaningful reform is urgently needed.
Foul!!! How is that possible? This is really revealing the dark side of the governmental agencies. They are so used to the public being numb and dumb that they think they can get away with this type of behaviour. Roll on the private prosecution service, the system isn’t fit for purpose. Michael Bint ought serve jail time for his criminality.
Spot on!
Once again, what you have shared in this article is how people in roles of responsibility, like Mr Bint at the Insolvency Services, are quick to hold those they are investigating responsible, but when it comes to them being held responsible, it is brushed under the carpet. How many innocent people have faced what Mr Cooper is but have not known what to do or not had the help and guidance so have been found guilty and have had to pay the cost?
You only have to look at what happened with Kids Company and Boris Becker, and these are only two that have had to go through the courts and spent thousands, upon thousands of pounds to prove their innocence.
Thank you for taking the time to write this article, it is one that needs to be read, so that anyone who ever has to come up against people like Mr Bint or anyone in the Insolvency Services will know that there are others and they are not alone.