I've been in contact with someone I know at one of the leading global anti corporate fraud outfits. Following are the major points of his response.
*****
Following up on your query about Smart TV.
We could certainly help pull some information together about the company and associated entities. I would think the most logical approach would be for the creditors to issue winding up proceedings against the company and engage an insolvency practitioner to investigate. They have very strong powers after all.
I have a couple of questions to clarify.
- Which entity has defrauded the victims?
- What is the quantum of the loss?
- What time period?
If the creditors need help to engage with a legal advisor in the UK to file any proceedings or claims, or bring in an insolvency practitioner (IP) we can make some introductions.
In terms of what our firm can do, we can assist in investigating and profiling the subjects, supporting the lawyers in preparing the litigation or supporting the IP with their investigation. We would charge a fee for our work, but in some cases like this, the costs of bringing the claim can be paid out of recoveries.
******
As you can see, the key at this point is to understand how many victims where affected, establish as many names as possible and understand what are the aggregate damages caused by the alleged fraudsters.
We know that Dogshead was collating such information but perhaps we should think of ways to bring the victims together. We need to make this a collective action, otherwise bunch of individual and relatively disorganised attempts for recovery don't stand much chance.
I thought that may be to speed up the process and get a broader reach, we could set up a website where customers and employees would submit their contacts and amounts owed.
Something like smartlivescam.org, smartliveaction.net or similar.
What do you think? The bigger the amounts and the more victims, the stronger support and traction we can generate.
Another thought was about getting the press involved. This GK Group as a legitimate company should be vulnerable to bad press about a project affiliated with them and actually headed by one of their CEOs.
Thoughts?
