What readers will get from this article:
1. A clear breakdown of the wrongdoing admitted and documented from the Official Receiver and the Insolvency Service.
2. An understanding of how provably false accusations and withheld reports led to an unlawful and wrongful arrest warrant.
3. Insight into the appeal and the multiple accountability processes now in motion, driven by Citizens Intervention Global’s active efforts to expose misconduct, uphold the rule of law, and ensure justice prevails.
4. Why unchecked misconduct in public office threatens justice, wastes taxpayers’ money, and erodes public trust.
A Crisis of Truth in the Courts
On 29 July 2025, during a High Court hearing (Cooper v Official Receiver), Deputy Official Receiver Michael Bint presented statements to Judge Agnello KC which were not only inaccurate but demonstrably false. These misrepresentations were relied upon by the Judge in reaching her decision, raising grave concerns about honesty, fairness, and accountability within the justice system. The failure of the Judge to challenge or validate these fundamental falsehoods is itself under appeal, with questions now being raised over both the conduct of the Official Receiver and the adequacy of judicial scrutiny applied in this case.
Provable Lies and Misrepresentations in Court
The Following Four Public Officers Are In The Process of Being Held Accountable For Their Wrong-Doing:
Joseph Sullivan, Victoria Prime, Michael Bint and Daniel Curthoys
The events of July 2025 revealed far more than isolated mistakes. They exposed a pattern of corruption, incompetence, and cover-ups within the Insolvency Service, a coordinated effort involving Official Receivers Joseph Sullivan and Victoria Prime, and Deputy Official Receivers Michael Bint and Daniel Curthoys. This pattern reflects a clear attempt to deflect accountability and conceal wrongdoing. The following serious acts of misconduct came to light:
During and around the court proceedings, the following serious acts of misconduct came to light:
1. Admission of Withholding Evidence
Mr Bint admitted in open court that Mr Cooper had not been served with the Official Receiver’s report prior to the hearing. This report played a decisive role in Judge Prentis issuing a warrant of arrest for Mr Cooper in February 2025.
2. False Statement on “Non-Cooperation”
Mr Bint told the Court that Mr Cooper’s “non-cooperation had been dealt with by Judge Schaffer.” This is provably false. On 26 November 2024, Judge Schaffer had expressly refused to issue a warrant of arrest and instead ordered an independent medical report. This requested medical report was subsequently submitted to the Court. To characterise this as a finding of “non-cooperation” was not only misleading, but a deliberate and unlawful distortion of the court record. To characterise this as a finding of “non-cooperation” was not a misstatement of nuance, it was a deliberate and unlawful distortion of the court record. Such a false representation to the Court constitutes a grave breach of the duty of candour owed by public officials and officers of the court. This was not an innocent error. It was a knowing and purposeful act intended to mislead the judge, weaponise the process of the court, and facilitate the continued persecution of Mr Cooper and Lighthouse while shielding the Insolvency Service from scrutiny for its own misconduct. The seriousness of this conduct cannot be overstated. Deliberate misrepresentation to a court is not merely improper, it is unlawful, potentially criminal, and strikes at the integrity of the judicial process itself.
The duty of candour means that public authorities in the UK must fully, fairly, and accurately disclose all relevant information to the court, even if that information undermines their own case.
3. False Claim About Attendance
Mr Bint told the Court that the Insolvency Service had “no indication” of whether Mr Cooper would attend the February hearing. This was misleading, demonstrably false and unlawful. In advance of the hearing in February, the Court and the Insolvency Service already had:
- Continuous NHS Med-3 certificates confirming medical incapacity;
- Written submissions prior to the hearing setting out his inability to attend;
- Explicit notice that Mr Cooper was overseas on medical advice and for safeguarding reasons, including documented death threats that were formally reported and under police investigation.
Judge Prentis had already expressly acknowledged both the medical certificates and Mr Cooper’s overseas location during the February hearing. Yet the exchanges in court and the subsequent July judgment were conducted, at best, as though Judge Agnello and Mr Bint had either not read or that they had deliberately disregarded the transcript of the earlier hearing in February 2025. At worst, this raises grave questions as to why the Judge asked whether there had been any indication of Mr Cooper’s absence and why Mr Bint proceeded to give a knowingly misleading and unlawful answer. The implications of this conduct are serious and point directly to a breakdown of candour, integrity, and due process at the heart of the proceedings.
The bottom line is that to tell the Court there was “no indication” ignored clear, documented evidence already on the record. This was not an oversight. It was a materially misleading statement to the Court. Whether made through gross negligence or deliberate intent, such conduct is unlawful and strikes at the integrity of the judicial process itself. This is not the first time that Mr Bint has been called out for a provable lack of duty of care in his capacity as someone employed by the UK Government and paid for by the UK taxpayer.
4. Failure to Correct the Record
Despite repeated requests, the Insolvency Service refused to correct these heinous lies and misrepresentations. The Insolvency Service responded on 29 September 2025 after we requested they make their wrongs right and they rejected responsibility entirely, asserting vaguely that “all relevant material was before the court.”
These points are not procedural slip-ups.. they are deliberate distortions that undermine the fairness of proceedings and are criminal by definition.
The February 2025 Arrest Warrant and the Withheld Report
What makes this matter particularly grave is what Mr Bint admitted in open court on 29 July 2025: that Mr Cooper was never served with the Official Receiver’s report prior to the hearing on 25 February 2025. That report, which Mr Cooper had no opportunity to see or challenge, played a decisive role in ICC Judge Sebastian Prentis’s decision to issue a warrant of arrest.
This is a blatant breach of due process and a direct assault on Mr Cooper’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR. A person cannot defend themselves against evidence they have never been given. By relying on an unserved and undisclosed report, the Court effectively judged Mr Cooper in absentia, violating the most basic principles of natural justice.
The reasons behind such unlawful conduct are limited: either a predetermined weaponisation of state powers to target Mr Cooper and Lighthouse, or a deliberate attempt to conceal institutional failures and protect those responsible. Either explanation is intolerable in a just society, especially in the UK which claims to operate by the stated British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. This conduct is not a procedural irregularity, it is a serious abuse of power that strikes at the heart of the rule of law, along with the other values in various forms.
It is understandable that Judge Agnello can only make rulings based on the information placed before her. However, in this case, critical information was knowingly withheld, representing yet another instance of the state being weaponised to target Mr Cooper and Lighthouse.
What is far more concerning is that these issues have been formally raised and evidenced to the Judge, yet she has taken no steps to correct or address the provable falsehoods presented in her court. That inaction is damning in itself.
Despite repeated attempts to communicate with both Judge Prentis and Judge Agnello regarding these falsehoods and their consequences, neither has taken any meaningful action to rectify the situation. This failure goes beyond oversight. It raises serious questions about judicial accountability and integrity, which we are now formally pursuing through the appropriate channels.
The Appeal and Accountability Process
Mr Cooper is now appealing the outcome of the July hearing and seeking to have the warrant of arrest quashed, overturned, and to be fully compensated along with receiving a public apology. At the same time, steps are underway to hold Joseph Sullivan, Victoria Prime, Michael Bint and Daniel Curthoys accountable through multiple lawful and official channels, including:
- The Court of Public Opinion – First and foremost, accountability begins here. Citizens have the right to see how public officials conduct themselves when entrusted with power and to intervene when that trust is broken. Citizen Intervention Global is already taking coordinated steps to bring this misconduct into the public domain, reaching millions of British citizens and international audiences. This process includes not only public exposure but also formal legal actions, including private prosecutions where criminality is evident. Justice will not be left solely to closed institutional processes; it will be pursued openly and relentlessly in the public square.
- Formal open letter to US President Donald Trump – This letter will outline the atrocities of corruption and incompetence within UK government agencies, and how these institutions are being weaponised through falsehoods that destroy people’s lives. Mr Cooper’s case will be a central example presented to President Trump and his office, a clear demonstration of how systemic abuse of power and collusion between state institutions and media can devastate individuals while eroding public trust in justice and democracy.
- The Insolvency Service – We demand that Alec Pybus (CEO of the Insolvency Service) investigates these aforementioned officials for misconduct in public office, repeated misrepresentations, and refusal to uphold the duty of candour.
- The Court of Appeal – This formal judicial process involves challenging the latest ruling by Judge Agnello on 29 July July 2025 on the basis of false evidence, procedural unfairness, and judicial oversight failures.
- Oversight and Regulatory Bodies – This is to ensure that these failures are investigated as independently as is possible given the existing systems and structures in place. Taking this step means doing as much as possible to make sure that any wrongdoing is not concealed under institutional cover-ups.
A Wider Principle at Stake
This is not simply about Mr Cooper. It is about the wider principle that justice must not be built on lies or secrecy. When officers of the Insolvency Service mislead the Court, withhold crucial documents, and allow false accusations to drive proceedings, it is not just one man who suffers, it is the credibility of the entire judicial system itself that is corroded.
“An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
A Case That Should Never Have Reached Court
Crucially, the bigger picture must not be overlooked: the case against Mr Cooper should never have reached the Court at all. The original accusations that triggered these proceedings in the first place (back in spring 2022) are provably false, and if the Insolvency Service had exercised even basic due diligence and verification, the matter would have been dismissed immediately. Instead, officials pressed forward with baseless claims, wasting taxpayer funds, court resources, and the time of public officers, while inflicting needless harm on an innocent individual. As an example, the Insolvency Service used a hearsay, hit-piece Daily Mail tabloid article as evidence for a formal Winding Up Petition. This article has been publicly dissected and debunked line-by-line.
It’s also worth stating that Wikipedia took the decision in 2017 to remove the Daily Mail as a reliable source that can be referred to.
To make matters worse, the Insolvency Service has repeatedly refused to investigate the false accusations, despite numerous formal and public demands to do so, compounding its untenable position and deepening public concern over its integrity, competence, and accountability
This is more than an error. It is the symptom of a system that has abandoned its duty to care, to represent truth and fairness. Unless accountability is enforced, such misconduct will continue to threaten the rights of citizens and the integrity of justice itself.
The Human Cost and Damages
Beyond the legal and institutional failures, the ongoing misconduct of the Insolvency Service has inflicted severe personal damage on Mr Cooper and Lighthouse. This is not an abstract matter of procedure — it is about the life of a man whose health, livelihood, reputation, family, and future have all been gravely harmed.
For months, we have consistently exposed the wrongdoing of the Official Receiver and its officers. Instead of taking responsibility and making their wrongs right, these individuals have chosen a different path: they have weaponised the machinery of government to turn this case into a personal vendetta against Mr Cooper and Lighthouse for daring to hold them accountable.
These public officials believe themselves to be untouchable, cloaked in authority and arrogance. They have built a legacy on escaping scrutiny — a legacy reinforced by years of getting away with misconduct. Unfortunately for them, they now face a group of people who will not allow falsehoods to stand, who will pursue the truth relentlessly, and who will not back down until justice prevails.
The case of Kids Company is only one high-profile example of the culture of impunity that has taken root in parts of the Insolvency Service. It stands as a warning of how institutional misconduct, left unchecked, destroys lives, wastes public money, and corrodes trust in the very systems meant to uphold justice.
- Health – Prolonged stress, reputational attacks, and the ongoing fear created by the warrant of arrest have exacerbated serious medical conditions, despite continuous NHS Med-3 certificates confirming incapacity.
- Reputation – The Insolvency Service’s misrepresentations have given credence to the BBC’s reporting, where journalist Catrin Nye and her sources have spread hundreds of provable lies about Lighthouse and about Mr Cooper personally. These lies continue to circulate, smearing his name without accountability, all while the BBC refuse to grant Lighthouse their full and comprehensive right to reply with full evidence, all the relevant facts and explanatory context.
- Livelihood and Family – The damage to Mr Cooper’s reputation and safety has undermined his ability to earn, provide for his family, and secure a stable future. Families caught in the crossfire of institutional evil and wrongdoing pay the heaviest price. The fact that a female member of Mr Cooper’s family was forcibly removed from a plane by more than ten officers asking after Mr Cooper is a stark demonstration of the extreme and disproportionate measures being deployed against him and his family. This incident is not just alarming, it is a clear manifestation of how state powers are being weaponised in a personal and targeted campaign. Such conduct represents a gross abuse of authority, raises serious human rights concerns, and stands as an outrage to the principles of justice, proportionality, and accountability.
- Safety and Security – The amplification of falsehoods by both the Insolvency Service and the BBC has incited hostility, violence and death threats toward Lighthouse and Mr Cooper. These more extreme threats of violence started after the Insolvency Service’s involvement in a provable hate and smear campaign against Lighthouse, as detailed here. The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk stands as a vivid and chilling reminder of how public vilification and dehumanisation can end in grave, real-world consequences. God bless Charlie Kirk’s soul, his work, and his legacy.
This case is therefore not only about correcting court records or exposing misconduct in office. It is about preventing institutional lies from fuelling public hatred and violence, with devastating consequences for individuals, families, and society at large.
We will not stop
Michael Bint and other public officials at the Insolvency Service have, on multiple occasions, demonstrated a level of arrogance and hubris wholly incompatible with the responsibilities of public office. Their actions are now matters of public record. This will form their legacy. They will ultimately be judged by how they respond to their wrongdoing, not by how they attempt to conceal it. The record will not forget, and neither will the public.
The bottom line is this: we will not stop fighting for justice and truth. We will exhaust every lawful avenue to hold those responsible accountable to the truth and for the weaponisation of bureaucratic systems and processes. We will expose corruption, incompetence, and wrongdoing by individuals wherever they are found through Citizen Intervention Global. We will ensure that the public knows how the institution, funded by the public and set up to serve the public, are actually being abused in the name of the so-called ‘public interest’. We will not stop!! Why? Because we never ever want to see any other citizen experience anything close to what we have experienced at the hands of the Insolvency Service.
Related articles
- Extra Lessons For Karen Baldock, Dean Beale, Michael Bint & Gary Seymour – UK Insolvency Service (17 Oct 2023).
The article highlights serious allegations of misconduct and procedural abuse within the UK Insolvency Service. Michael Bint is a key figure in decisions that undermined transparency, fairness, and due process and points to a wider culture of institutional overreach, holding him personally accountable for the harm caused in the Lighthouse case. - A gross failure in their duty of care by Michael Bint and the UK Insolvency Service.
The article shows how Michael Bint and the agency repeatedly ignored compelling evidence, failed to act humanely or competently, and abdicated their duty of care in their investigation of Lighthouse Global. - Insolvency Service Rap Sheet.
The article shows how Michael Bint and the Insolvency Service weaponised government resources and their positions through a flawed and unjust investigation into Lighthouse, exposing systemic abuse, procedural failings, and a presumption of guilt.
The avoidance of accountability and scrutiny
It’s crucial to be aware of the strategies and tactics tyrants use to avoid accountability and scrutiny and deceive the public. It’s an extremely common occurrence in our experience when it comes to the Insolvency Service and their deceptive actions and refusing to correct their wrongdoing. We have pointed out multiple errors, provably and evidentially, along with the Insolvency Services’s incompetence and cover ups in their handling of this case. From emailing us asking us for our email address, to completely ignoring our requests to validate the original accusations which are provably false. The common response is to ignore the facts and evidence and refuse to correct their errors. It’s unlawful! By not responding to these facts and evidence, they believe it keeps the truth off the record.
However when the public does not respond to every request of the Insolvency Service, whether legitimate or not, lawful or unlawful, reasonable or unreasonable, you will be judged to be non-cooperative. This is one rule for the public, another rule for the Insolvency Service. Last we checked the Insolvency Service has not any guidance when requested to comply with their investigation, but they refuse to answer questions which total well over 100. Their refusal is a blatant avoidance of accountability and scrutiny and it’s obvious which party refuses to comply and which party ought to be wound up in the public interest.
If the Official Receiver were to respond, they would be on record and the various systems are triggered and scrutiny of their wrong-doing, incompetence and even corruption is under the microscope. Their strategy is to avoid this at all costs and the Insolvency Service have gotten away with it with most who do not persevere with the truth and exploit every opportunity and crucially the court of public opinion along with private prosecutions (more on this under Citizens Intervention Global / UK). We will show evidence of this in this case and the Insolvency Service once the appeal process has been conducted along with all communications to prove this point. Unfortunately while there is a legal case in process, we are not able to publish this at this stage.
Legal and Editorial Disclaimer: This article is published in the public interest and in accordance with the principles of open justice and freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. All references to legal proceedings, public officials, or organisations are based on information available in the public domain or documents already disclosed in court.
Nothing in this article is intended, nor should it be interpreted, as seeking to prejudice, influence, or interfere with those proceedings (Mr Cooper v The Official Receiver) or with the administration of justice. All statements referring to individuals or institutions reflect the writer’s honestly-held opinions or fair comments on matters of public interest, based on evidence submitted to the court or disclosed by the parties. Any allegations or claims mentioned remain subject to judicial determination and should not be treated as findings of fact until formally decided by the Court of Appeal.
Readers are reminded that the outcome of the appeal will ultimately determine the legal position, and the content of this publication will be updated accordingly once the court’s judgment is issued.
Why am I not surprised at this type of underhanded behaviour form the Insolvency Service! It’s criminal as to what they get away with and how they abuse the system to attack innocent people so that they can win a case and justify tax payers money. They have been doing this for years and getting away with it because no one stands up to them. Good luck with your case. I hope you succeed and expose them for who they are.
Thank you for your support, we will never stop until justice, reform and compensation is rightfully addressed!
Having read this article unfortunately I can’t say that I’m shocked or even surprised and that in itself is a very sad state of affairs. In fact I have come to expect this behaviour from the Insolvency Service. In the case of Kids company the judge said that it was clear to see that the Insolvency Service had manipulated the context of the evidence to give a false impression of the truth. However this is even worse, it’s down right lying!! Wow, this is disgusting and shows the extent to which the Insolvency Service will go to in order to achieve a win. However many more times have they lied?!
Powerful, powerful article. The clear demonstration of the miscarriage of justice here shows exactly why Citizen Intervention Global is so necessary. So many people have faced similar injustices without even realising it until the truth is brought to light and they’re guided through it by those who’ve experienced it firsthand. God bless you, Shaun, for standing up to them — and to Paulie, whose leadership and perseverance have helped us all through this. It’s coming to a head, and there will be no place left for those who persist in this kind of deceit to hide. Thank you, God. 🙏
It’s quite sickening to see how this government organisation behaviours. I’m realising that these organisations, which are meant to be upstanding and there to protect us, are actually doing the opposite; in fact, they’re working against us. We really do need reform!! And these guys need to be held accountable!!!
This article highlights the incompetence of some government agencies. I say that because of how the IS are treating Shaun Cooper—treating him like a criminal for not turning up to court, despite having a legitimate reason. Now questioning what Mr Bint has been sharing with the courts, what lies is he fabricating to get them to issue an arrest warrant?
Sharing this with the world helps people understand not only what is happening to Shaun, but also the kinds of problems the IS causes for others. Where is this happening, and where has this happened to someone else?
Thank you for these updates in allowing us to understand what is happening and the actions that are needed and are being taken
God bless everyone
The tyranny of the Insolvency Service continues to be exposed! When it comes to the Insolvency Service, the one thing I am most grateful is to see how a government agency is far more interested in protecting itself and its reputation through coverup and gaslighting than actually serving the public its set up to serve.
The more I look into the modus operandi and track record of the Insolvency Service, the more I see human evil in action. By that I mean wicked acts performed in the name of good. The tragic irony is that if the Insolvency Service assessed and judged itself by the standards that it does for others, it would have to have wound itself up years ago!
Even Kids Company, a charity set up to help vulnerable children, was bullied into submission by the Insolvency Service:
https://insolvencyservicecorruption.com/the-case-of-kids-company/. In this case it contributed to the premature death of its founder, Camila Batmanghelidjh, aged 61.
Then there’s the staff fired for pulling insider-favours…
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/official-receiver-staff-sacked-over-sharing-case-data/
When confronted about its inhumane way of operating, there’s nothing back from them – no apology, no acceptance of responsibility. What it’s done and does to people is indefensible!
https://davidvsgoliath.global/a-gross-failure-in-their-duty-of-care-by-michael-bint-and-the-uk-insolvency-services/
This organisation promotes itself as holier than thou, but continues to operate in ways that are psychopathic, incompetent and corrupt based on personal experience and other public examples… that’s before we start to learn about other examples that are not public, but we are learning about as brave souls step forward.
This is outrageous and barbaric behaviour. Just as it was with Kids Company, I am sure that it will come out what bullies and how underhanded the Insolvency Service have been against the very citizens it will claim to be protecting. And it is already coming out.
What Shaun Cooper has been through, what has been withheld and how he has been treated would drive anyone to their grave, let alone to illness. It is absolutely horrific.
The behaviour of the Insolvency Service is utterly outrageous! Because of their own agenda and their refusal to take responsibility for their mistakes and incompetence, innocent individuals are left to suffer. There is a complete lack of care or accountability in their actions. As seen in Shaun Cooper’s case, these failures escalate into the courts, where the process itself inspires little confidence, especially when even basic details, such as correctly spelling names in official documents, are neglected.
There is an urgent need for intervention and for genuine support for those who have suffered, and continue to suffer, under the tyranny of these organisations.
God bless.
Please refer to the reports detailong serious corruption with real evidence of lies and cheating by the most senior judges in the Insolvency & Companies Court.
We will link back to this article…
https://intelligenceuk.com
Thanks Martin, I appreciate you are someone who has been public in highlighting where the Insolvency Service has fallen short of the standards it ought to be operating at.
I’ll be sure to follow this Martin. Looking at the site, how many Judges are Insolvency And Companies Court Judges? Doesn’t that show how corrupt the Insolvency Dept is under the Secretary of State.
Insolvency Service UK. Never trust these thieving fraudsters. They pretend they act in the best interests of the public and protecting it but in reality they Insolvency Service is just a weapon to attack people. Look at the latest attacks on Ant Middleton. That’s a political attack. Where someone does wrong, why don’t they try help the individual rather than attack them and their families. All they care about it the number of cases they win in. That’s numbers ahead of people.