Latest news with #falseclaims
Free Malaysia Today
5 days ago
- Free Malaysia Today
2 held over false claims involving Perlis school projects
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission said the men were released on MACC bail of RM10,000 with one surety tonight. KANGAR : The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has detained two men in connection with an investigation into false claims involving more than RM2 million in 2022. According to a source, the duo, aged 43 and 50, were arrested between 4pm and 4.10pm today when they turned up to give their statements at the Perlis MACC office here. The two are believed to have used five construction companies to undertake maintenance, upgrading and repair works at five secondary schools in Perlis, involving an allocation of RM2.459 million. The source said the men were released on MACC bail of RM10,000 with one surety at 9.30pm tonight. They were previously arrested by the Selangor MACC in 2023 and charged under Section 420 of the Penal Code in connection with the same project in Selangor. Meanwhile, Perlis MACC director Nor Adha Ab Gani confirmed the arrest and said the case is being investigated under Section 18 of the MACC Act 2009.
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Daily Mail
City investment banker who made false claim he was sexually harassed at work by a female colleague is sued by his old bosses
A City investment banker who made false claims that he had been sexually harassed by his female manager is now being sued by his old bosses who want him to be found in contempt of court. Damilare Ajao, who worked for German finance giant Commerzbank in London in 2019, claimed he was pestered by a female manager who 'flirtatiously' told him she could 'see his underwear' and tried to touch his Gucci belt buckle in the staff canteen. Mr Ajao, who was sacked in November 2019, subsequently brought an employment tribunal claim against the bank, which included allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault against the manager - who was identified in court only as 'Q'. The allegations centred on claims that she had made a sexualised comment about a string vest that he was wearing under a shirt and that he had been forced to slap her hand away when she reached out towards his designer belt. But his allegations were thrown out by judge Anthony Snelson, who found that the sexual harassment and assault allegations 'were false and in large part made up', with the serious claim of sexual assault amounting to 'pure invention'. Mr Ajoa was also handed a £60,000 legal costs bill. But far from being the end of matters, Commerzbank AG is now taking the unusual step of suing Mr Ajoa in a bid to get him found in contempt of court, which could see him face up to two years in prison. It comes after his former bosses said the 'made up' allegations against the female manager had caused such distress they had resulted in her developing a 'serious psychiatric illness'. Asking London's High Court to find - on the criminal standard of proof - that Mr Ajao deliberately lied, lawyers for Commerzbank told Mr Justice Martin Spencer that the manager on the receiving end of the disproved allegations had gone on to 'develop a serious psychiatric illness' as a result of being accused. But Mr Ajao is fighting the case, insisting that he had genuinely believed in what he told the tribunal, even if he ultimately lost his case. The court heard that Mr Ajao worked for the bank at its offices in Gresham Street, in the City of London, between May and November 2019 when he was sacked, and subsequently brought his unsuccessful tribunal claim. Employment Judge Snelson in April 2024 dismissed his claim and said of the sex allegations: 'We are satisfied that the claimant's case under this head is simply false. 'We accept the evidence of Q that she once commented to him in the office that she could see his vest through his shirt and that it was an interesting look, or words to that effect. She told us that the shirt was very thin and the vest seemed to be of a material resembling fishnet tights. 'The remark was not made in a suggestive manner. Nor did it come across as a criticism. 'We greatly regret to say that in our judgment the balance of the claimant's case on sexual harassment, which included an exceedingly serious allegation of sexual assault, is, in its entirety, pure invention. 'The acts and events on which he relies did not happen. There was no treatment of him by Q which could conceivably have been seen as amounting to harassment of any kind. 'He repeatedly put forward assertions which were completely untrue and which he knew to be completely untrue. Numerous claims had no factual basis whatsoever. 'The alleged events on which they were premised never happened. They were made up. 'We found him a witness "contemptuous of his duty to tell the truth and unworthy of belief".' The bank is now suing its former employee, seeking to have him found in contempt. Louis Browne KC, for the bank, told the judge Mr Ajao 'made numerous allegations including race, ... sex discrimination/sexual harassment, bullying, harassment, victimisation. 'His claims for alleged discrimination and harassment by Q were false, were known by him to be false and were found so to be by the employment tribunal. 'The allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and harassment by Q were of an extremely serious nature. The fact and nature of these allegations caused Q to develop a serious psychiatric illness. 'In acting as he did, Mr Ajao knowingly made false statements of truth and/or interfered with the due administration of justice by giving evidence which he knew was false, which he knew would be likely to interfere with the administration of justice and which had the clear and obvious potential so to do. 'He was contemptuous of his duty to tell the truth. 'Commerzbank contend that the court will be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the grounds of contempt for which permission has been granted will be proved beyond reasonable doubt.' Fiona Horlick KC, for Mr Ajao, reminded the court that the findings of the tribunal could not be taken as proof of his guilt in the contempt action, as the standard of proof is higher with a different focus on the evidence. Cross examining 'Q' in the witness box, Mr Browne said: 'A vest is underwear. You described the vest he was wearing as like fishnet stockings or tights. He was wearing a thin shirt and you could see the fishnet net vest through the thin shirt and you would have been able to see his body in the gaps. You would be able to see for example his nipples. You could see the rest of his body.' She responded: 'No, I don't believe I would have been able to see his nipples. I don't think a person would wear something like that to the office.' The barrister continued: 'You said you could see his vest and it looked interesting. That's a remark about his underwear.' 'That's not the way I said it,' insisted Q, adding that it was 'a very casual comment'. She added: 'The whole look looked extraordinary. That's why I made a comment. I didn't say it in a sexual way.' Mr Browne put to her: 'Remarking upon a person of the opposite gender's underwear and saying it looked interesting - do you admit that could be interpreted as being flirtatious?' 'No,' she replied. 'It could have been if it was somebody who didn't have this friendly relationship that we had. I wouldn't say it to a random person.. In the context of our relationship, it doesn't make sense. Absolutely not.' But the barrister said the friendly relationship might make it more likely that it would be interpreted as flirting, something which she denied in the witness box. Moving onto the incident with the Gucci belt, Mr Browne told Q: 'You stretched out your hand towards the Gucci buckle as if you wanted to touch it... he instinctively knocked your hand away and you said, 'I'm just looking'.' Q responded: 'Absolutely not. I never extended my arm or did anything suggestive of something indecent. It was just an innocuous thing to say, nothing special. 'I didn't reach out for his belt or try to touch it. That's why I say it was from afar. The way I was saying all these things could not have been interpreted as being sexual'. Ms Horlick in her written submissions told the court that the fact Mr Ajao is facing contempt allegations is extraordinary, saying, 'those acting for Mr Ajao have found no reported case in which a party to employment proceedings has brought a contempt application alleging interference with the due administration of justice on the basis of conflicting witness evidence alone. 'The bank must show that Mr Ajao undertook conduct interfering with the due administration of justice. 'In this case the bank must show, to the criminal standard, that Mr Ajao knew the statements made by him were false, in that he made them dishonestly and intended that they would interfere with the administration of justice in some material way. 'These proceedings have been brought in a haphazard, slipshod fashion. The bank has chosen to relitigate the facts underlying the employment claim in the High Court. 'It is entitled to do that, but must prove its case to the criminal standard. It cannot do that where Mr Ajao's evidence was truthful (or) the areas of factual dispute are riven with matters of interpretation and perception. 'Mr Ajao will invite the court to find that the application is misconceived as a matter of law and is not supported by the evidence and to dismiss the application accordingly.' The judge will give his ruling at a later date.
The Independent
7 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Business secretary warned he faces prosecution if he repeats false CV claims
Jonathan Reynolds has been warned he faces prosecution if he repeats previous false claims that he worked as a solicitor. The business secretary has been told by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) that he could be prosecuted if he claims again to have been a solicitor, despite never qualifying. It came after the watchdog closed an investigation into the false claims made by Mr Reynolds, deciding it 'did not consider it proportionate or in the public interest to bring criminal proceedings'. 'However, we have advised that if the behaviour is repeated, we may well reconsider our position,' the watchdog added. A source close to Mr Reynolds told The Daily Telegraph: 'We were happy to engage with the investigation. We're glad it's now concluded. Jonathan can now get on with doing the very important job that we are focused on.' The SRA launched an investigation into the business secretary in February after it emerged he had claimed to be a member of the profession on his CV despite having never qualified. The cabinet minister, who entered parliament before completing his training, claimed on his old constituency website that he was a solicitor at the Manchester branch of the law firm Addleshaw Goddard before becoming an MP. And in a 2014 speech to the House of Commons he said he had 'worked as a solicitor in Manchester city centre'. The SRA decided it would not take any further action, but is understood to have written to him with the warning not to repeat the claims in May. And Sir Keir Starmer accepted an apology from his business secretary over the false claims. At a lunch with journalists in parliament last week, Mr Reynolds said the watchdog had warned him to be 'careful' in future. 'They came back shortly after that media period to say look, always be careful to be accurate, but there's no misleading here, and there's nothing else to look into,' he added. Critics called for Mr Reynolds to be sacked over the claims when they first emerged, with Nigel Farage even announcing plans to privately prosecute the business secretary. The Reform UK leader told a rally in February: "Jonathan Reynolds, who's never had a proper job in his life, who tells us he's a solicitor when he's never been qualified, which is a criminal offence." He added: "I can tell you tonight that there will be a private prosecution brought against Jonathan Reynolds." The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) states that it is a criminal offence for an individual to identify or act as a solicitor without being officially registered on the roll of solicitors. This could include someone 'describing themselves as a solicitor on their social media profiles'. The term 'solicitor' is legally protected and it is an offence for someone to call themselves a solicitor if they are not qualified and registered with the SRA. Labour has previously blamed the reference to Mr Reynolds being a solicitor on LinkedIn to 'human error'.
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Abcarian: Did the MyPillow guy, clinging to the Big Lie, defame a Dominion exec?
There's a line in Eric Coomer's defamation lawsuit against Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, that strikes me as the perfect description of what happens when influential partisans belch lies about innocent people in these insanely charged political times: 'The real world consequences for the subjects of those lies,' says the lawsuit, 'have been devastating.' Indeed. Think of Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, whose lives were destroyed when Rudy Giuliani, once President Trump's top campaign lawyer, claimed the pair had rigged the 2020 election outcome in their state. Giuliani even invented a blatantly racist story about the women passing drugs to each other at their Fulton County polling place. Trump amplified the claims. The two women received death threats, were loath to leave home even for groceries and had to go into hiding. I will never forget how sad and broken they seemed during their testimony before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. Happily, Freeman and Moss won a $148-million settlement from Giuliani, leading the former New York mayor to unsuccessfully sue for bankruptcy in an effort to dodge his obligation. Now stripped of his license to practice law in New York, Giuliani has fallen so far he's not even a punchline on late night TV anymore. Just like Freeman and Moss, Coomer, the former director of product strategy and security for Dominion Voting Systems, was subjected to a torrent of false claims about election rigging by Lindell and other right-wing conspiracy theorists and media outlets. Like Freeman and Moss, he was terrorized and driven into hiding. He left his job, moved to a new location, placed guns around the house he borrowed from a friend, experienced depression and panic attacks, and believes he will not be able to return to his profession. 'People were essentially taking bets on how my brother's corpse would be found and which nefarious shadow group would be behind his death,' Coomer's brother told the New York Times in 2021. 'He would be executed by the state or he would be found with a falsified suicide note and two gunshots in the back of his head.' Coomer, like others, became collateral damage in the misbegotten MAGA campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Fox News hosts, including Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, completely lost their minds, and the company allowed its highest-profile stars to spew lie after lie about the election in general and Dominion Voting Systems in particular, knowing full well (as News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath) that Dominion was blameless and that Joe Biden had won fair and square. That unsavory chapter ended up costing Fox $787.5 million in a settlement to Dominion, which allowed the right-wing network to avert a trial. Coomer, who has filed lawsuits against Giuliani and several others who spread lies about him, now gets his day in court against Lindell. The defamation trial, which began Monday, is expected to last through the end of this week. (Coomer settled suits against conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell; Newsmax; One America News Network, or OAN; and an OAN correspondent. His suit against Guiliani is pending.) The false claims against Coomer were dreamed up by a conservative Colorado podcaster, Joseph Oltmann, who told listeners that he had infiltrated an 'Antifa conference call' in which 'Eric, the Dominion guy' claimed to have rigged the election against Trump. (Coomer's defamation suit against Oltmann is also pending.) 'Oltmann,' says Coomer's lawsuit, 'claimed this supposed call happened on some unspecified date months before the election, but that he did not think to take action until after the election was called for President Biden …. Oltmann's story is inherently implausible.' Not to mention, outlandish and preposterous. In his campaign against Coomer, Oltmann posted a photo of the Dominion executive's home on his social media and urged his followers to 'blow this sh— up. Share, put his name everywhere. No rest for this sh—bag … Eric we are watching you.' Lindell, who seems never to have come across a right-wing conspiracy theory he couldn't embrace, picked up on Oltmann's fantasies about Coomer and began spreading them far and wide — in interviews, on his website, in social media, etc. On his FrankSpeech media platform, Lindell addressed Coomer directly: 'You are disgusting and you are treasonous. You are a traitor to the United States of America.' (Classic case of projection, imho.) Lindell could have settled as so many others have done. Instead, he has chosen to fight on, hawking pillows, sheets and slippers to pay his legal bills as he goes. His attorney said that because he believed what he was saying was true, it's not defamation. 'It's just words. All Mike Lindell did was talk,' Lindell's attorney told the jury. 'Mike believed that he was telling the truth.' Before the trial, Lindell stood on the federal courthouse steps in Denver and proclaimed that his only goal in all this was to ban electronic voting machines and replace them with paper ballots. 'If we can get there,' he said, 'I would sacrifice everything.' If Coomer wins his defamation case against Lindell — and I really hope he does — Lindell will have lost a lot and gained very little. First, the case has nothing to do with the validity of voting machines. Second, an estimated 98% of American voters already cast ballots that leave a paper trail because that's one way voting machines record votes. But Lindell, like so many of his MAGA compatriots, still won't let reality stand in the way of Trump's Big Lie. @ Threads: @rabcarian If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
The Guardian
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
MyPillow's Mike Lindell faces trial and plans to testify about 2020 election lies
A trial underway in Colorado could add to the financial problems facing the pillow salesman and prominent election denier Mike Lindell and will serve as another test of whether defamation law can be effective to fight false claims about elections. Opening statements began Tuesday in a case brought by Eric Coomer, who formerly worked in security and voting technology strategy for voting machine company Dominion. Coomer sued Lindell and a host of others who spread unproven claims that he interfered with the 2020 election. . Companies and individuals who were targeted by the right with false stolen election claims after the 2020 election have attempted to use defamation law to hold parties including Fox News and other rightwing media outlets accountable for false claims. Several lawsuits have been settled, including a claim Coomer brought against conservative outlet Newsmax, while juries have awarded damages in others, including a major judgment against Rudy Giuliani. The conspiracy theories about Coomer started with a rightwing podcaster in Colorado, Joe Oltmann, who claimed that someone who identified himself as 'Eric the Dominion guy' had been on an 'antifa' call where he said: 'Don't worry about the election, Trump is not gonna win. I made fucking sure of that.' Oltmann found some of Coomer's social media posts, which were anti-Donald Trump. Oltmann has not produced any tape of the alleged call, nor any other proof that Coomer manipulated the election. Coomer is also suing Oltmann, who is expected to testify this week in the Lindell trial. Lindell elevated Oltmann's claims and has fought the lawsuit, one of several he has faced over his election lies. His online TV network, LindellTV, is providing regular coverage of the case. On Monday, the day the jury was selected, Lindell held a news conference outside the courthouse before the trial began. He said he plans to take the stand at trial this week, telling Rolling Stone: 'Of course I'm gonna testify at my own trial! … I have nothing to hide. I am a former crack addict; I've always been open about that. I've always been open about everything! I'm as transparent as they come … So I have nothing to hide at this trial.' Coomer filed the lawsuit against Lindell in April 2022. Coomer's attorneys have argued Lindell's statements about Coomer were in part motivated by Newsmax not allowing Lindell to go on its programs after the company settled the lawsuit Coomer brought against it for spreading false claims, according to the Denver Post. Lindell's attorneys said Coomer's lawsuit against Lindell 'triggered' the pillow salesman into defaming Coomer, the paper reported. In videos shown to the jury on Tuesday, Lindell said Coomer had participated in 'the biggest crime this world has ever seen', reported 9 News, a local Denver news outlet. Lindell's attorneys said they would not show evidence of a rigged election because it was immaterial to Lindell's defense. 'It's just words. All Mike Lindell did was talk,' Chris Kachouroff, Lindell's attorney, said. 'Mike believed that he was telling the truth.' According to 9News, Coomer testified in the case on Tuesday, saying he has never interfered with an election and that Lindell's claims had caused intense disruption to his life. Coomer said he feared for his life, experienced death threats and had gone into hiding for a time. 'Ultimately it's to try to regain some semblance of my life. I didn't just lose my livelihood, I lost my life as a direct result of statements by Mr. Lindell accusing me of being a traitor,' Coomer said. Lindell is also being sued by Dominion and Smartmatic, another voting machine company. Those lawsuits have not made it to trial. Lindell has struggled to pay for his legal defense – a law firm that was representing him sought to be removed from his cases because he owed them millions of dollars and couldn't pay, the Star Tribune reported.
