AUDITED ACCOUNTS The newly filed (2011) audited accounts of COSRECI for the year ended 2008 are here. They were filed in South Australia - the first financials to be filed in SA since incorporation in 1976. You'll notice that they are the 2008 UK version, but with the added auditor's report, which includes much new information. The audited financials for 2009 and 2010 are yet to be filed. UNAUDITED ACCOUNTS The old unaudited 2008 accounts filed at UK Companies House are here. Or, get the complete set of unaudited UK financials from 2000 to 2008, with some added bonuses, here. Do your thing Anonymous.
EDIT: This is now redundant. See the post after mine. /popcorn Interestingggggg. I think someone mentioned a few weeks ago that something was happening on this. Clarification please. The file in the 2nd anonymous post is the same as the one that was supposed to be in the OP fail link? Note: The file in the 2nd anon link is the 2008 unaudited accounts (which we have already had released and posted in an info pack of unaudited accounts data from 1999 up to and includng 2008, plus registration docs, appointments docs etc from Companies House) Question: Is OP saying that accounts for 2008, 2009 and 2010 are now audited and filed but not yet available to us for public viewing, or not yet filed in the UK but audited and being made available to Lord Xenophon Galactic Rulah and SAOCBA? UK Companies House search currently reveals no new accounts beyond the already filed 2008 unaudited accounts. ---------------------------------- Some stuff, just because I was bored >>> Current list of latest COSRECI information available from the point of 2008 unaudited accounts filing (costs £1 per document) at Companies House website: *OSIN01 10/01/2011 INITIAL BRANCH REGISTRATION *OSIN01 10/01/2011 INITIAL BRANCH REGISTRATION *OSIN01 10/01/2011 INITIAL BRANCH REGISTRATION *OSIN01 10/01/2011 INITIAL BRANCH REGISTRATION *OSIN01 10/01/2011 INITIAL BRANCH REGISTRATION *OSIN01 10/01/2011 INITIAL BRANCH REGISTRATION *OSIN01 10/01/2011 INITIAL BRANCH REGISTRATION *OSIN01 10/01/2011 INITIAL BRANCH REGISTRATION *OSIN01 10/01/2011 INITIAL BRANCH REGISTRATION **OSTN01 14/09/2010 TRANSITIONAL RETURN OF AN OVERSEAS COMPANY AA 06/04/2009 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/08 (Note: If they eventually turn up on the list, it likely won't tell you whether accounts are audited or unaudited until you buy the dox) Explanation of latest filing types (useful if you want to know what type of information a company has to provide)......... Forms below can be downloaded here: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/forms/registrarsRulesFormsContinuation.shtml *OS IN01 - Registration of an overseas company opening a UK establishment. Main Form: OS IN01 - Registration of an overseas company opening a UK establishment (PDF 525Kb) Continuation page(s) - OS IN01 - Secretary details (PDF 413Kb) OS IN01 - Corporate secretary (PDF 310Kb) OS IN01 - Director details (PDF 339Kb) OS IN01 - Corporate director details (PDF 311Kb) OS IN01 - Permanent representative's details (PDF 87Kb) OS IN01 - Details of person authorised to accept service of documents in the UK (PDF 284Kb) **OS TN01 and its continuation sheet, OSTN01(CONT) are new Companies House forms for transitional returns of overseas companies which have an establishment in the United Kingdom. The Companies Act 2006 requires this information to be filed by 31st March. OS TN01 - Transitional return by a UK establishment of an overseas company Main Form: OS TN01 - Transitional return by a UK establishment of an overseas company (PDF 428Kb) Continuation page(s) - OS TN01 - Permanent Representative (PDF 289Kb) OS TN01 - Person authorised to accept service (PDF 261Kb) Looking at the OS TN01 main form: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/fo...urn_by_a_uk_establishment_registrarsRules.pdf There is this section on the form: So if you had that OS TN01 document that then you'd know whether or not accounts had at least been sent in on 10th Jan 2011. (I don't think "certified translation" neccessarily means audited but just that they got a charted accountant to look them over, with their disclaimer, as they have always done). If I have the time later I might buy that document and some other of the later ones but TBH it's probably worth waiting to see what results from the OP, when we might get full audited accounts dox and for free anyway. EDIT: This is now redundant. See the post after mine.
Apologies. I can't find my TinyDancer password! Halp! AUDITED ACCOUNTS The newly filed (2011) audited accounts of COSRECI for the year ended 2008 are here. They were filed in South Australia - the first financials to be filed in SA since incorporation in 1976. You'll notice that they are the 2008 UK version, but with the added auditor's report, which includes much new information. The audited financials for 2009 and 2010 are yet to be filed. UNAUDITED ACCOUNTS The old unaudited 2008 accounts filed at UK Companies House are here. Or, get the complete set of unaudited UK financials from 2000 to 2008, with some added bonuses, here. Do your thing Anonymous.
Thanks plups/TD schizo <3 I was in the middle of posting more woffle into my post above when you posted that update.
So... The auditor is a Stephen Sellers of the firm Grant Sellers. I wonder how reputable/independent/up for the job he/they are.
I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of Vicki Dunstan, CO OSA ANZO (or possibly former CO OSA ANZO?) and Michael Gordon (OSA ANZO) whose efforts in harassing me really spurred me to take a good look at the compliance failures of COSRECI. This little project was kicked off just a month later. Credit where credit is due. Sorry the audit was so very expensive, Vicki.
Ha ha, nice work. Read it and weep OSA, this is how we roll - we will ALWAYS hurt you more than you can ever hurt us, because none of us are as cruel as all of us, and of course YOU are Fair Game.
OK, after initial gloss over the pages of the 2008 audited vs. unaudited, All the figures in the main tables are identical. The differences are in the Auditors remarks with lots of figures in the "other information" section relating to related party disclosure (covered by Financial Reporting Standards rules, FRS 8). In the past the cult has I think asserted that it has FRS 8 exemption and doesn't have to disclose its related party transaction details. Now they appear to be having a re-think. Quote: "the trustees have re-examined the relationship between the UK Branch and other orgnisations and accept that certain entities could fall withing the wide definition of related party as defined by FRS 8" Orly? yahrly. "re-examined" = "we really knew but we lied, and now that we're being put under the public spotlight we better start fessing up" The auditor does put the disclaimer though "As the trustees have agreed to the inclusion of this statement as an addendum to out audit report, our audit opinion is not qualified in this respect." I think if I was auditing that lot with all those entities outside of the actual enitity being audited, but clearly the same group, and with all those sales/purchases of "services" and all the loans then I'd definitely want to make such a disclaimer, especially if the trustees look like they knew that they didn't have FRS 8 exemption for some or all of the related entities. Resources: FRS 8 accounting standards legislation on Related Parties Disclosure.... http://www.icaew.com/en/library/subject-gateways/accounting-standards/uk-frs/frs-08 If any of you can understand any of that. That's just my e-accounting summary. I'm not an accountant, although I do like munneh.
I notice the audited 2008 account notes repeat the lie CO$RECI is a charity in South Australia. Would an auditor that's on the up-and-up bother to verify that particular fact before signing off on an account report like this?? BigBeard
^ I was specifically looking for the old South Australian Charity thing but didn't see it. Looked again and it's not a statement repeated specifically by the auditor and is part of the statement of accounts which is a carbon copy of the unaudited ones. So although the auditors didn't make the same statement, they signed off on it. However, is that within the scope of the auditor to determine whether that is true or not? Also, note that the auditors have a disclaimer for the 2008 opening balance carried over from 2007. Obviously they can't vouch for any accuracy in that because 2007 accounts were unaudited.
Data extracted from the cover page: Office of Consumer and Business Affairs, South Australia Section 36(1) 9 Periodic Return Particulars of the Members of the committee of the association as at the date of the return: Trustee & Secretary: Massino Angus, Bullards, Turners Hill Rd, East Grinstead, England Trustee & Treasurer: Richard Wilkins, Walsh Manor, Walshes Rd, Crowborough, England Trustee & President: Francoise Springall, Walsh Manor, Walshes Rd, Crowborough, England Particulars of the auditor acting under section 35(2) of the Act as at the date of this return: Auditor: Stephen Sellers Audit firm: Grant Sellers, Bank Court, Manor Rd, Verwood, [Dorset BH31 6DY], England Auditor Qualification (Please Tick one): YES: A person approved by the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs (South Australia) NO: A registered company auditor NO: A firm of registered company auditors NO: A Member of the ASCPA or ICA Particulars of the Public Officer of the association as at the date of this return: Rosalind Jennifer Robins 82 Windsor Avenue, Woodville Park, South Australia, 5011 Particulars certified in this periodic return by: Rosalind Jennifer Robins (address as above) Phone: 0882232851 email: rossrobins@yahoo.com.au Date: 28/02/2011 ------- Business and Occupational Services, Level 3, Chesser House, 91-97, Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000 GPO Box 1719, Adelaide SA 5001. Tel 1300 138 918 Fax (08)8204 9771 www.ocba.sa.gov.au
I just burst out laughing when I looked up the Auditing firm, Chartered Accountants Grant Sellers on google maps streetview and they are right next door to a Chiropractor. I don't know what that means other than simply poetic tinfoil. Well, they've been doing COSRECIs accounts for a few years now. I think as far back as 2005 at least. Don't know anything else. Their office looks the bizniss in the google streetview and nobody seems to have come up with anything in all that time which might raise suspicion.
Fees payable to the UK Branch's auditor for the audit of the financial statements £20,750 Fees payable to the UK Branch's auditor for other services £21,350 TOTAL: £42,100 (65,807 AUD) ka-ching! ??? Priceless.
If it were "A person approved by the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs (South Australia)" then how come they hit on some presumed clam in Dorset, southern England?
£42,100 = $68,690 USD (AUD with inflation maybe? lol) muhahahhahahaaaa. Surely that's atleast 4-5 years worth of Vicky's OSA salary amirite?
The audit was requested by the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs, South Australia where COSRECI is incorporated. That's what the cover form and the audit is for. The other options are: NO: A registered company auditor [in south Australia] NO: A firm of registered company auditors [ in south Australia] NO: A Member of the ASCPA or ICA [these are Australian organisations]. The accountant firm is based in the UK and AFIAK don't have an office in South Australia so none of the above can be "yes". The only option left is: YES: A person approved by the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs (South Australia) Since Grant Sellers are charted accountants then they can perform audits. Also, since COSRECI accounts are filed at UK Companies House to UK accounting practices and the cult has used Grant Sellers in the UK since at least 2005 then the cult chose them to do their audit and The Office of Consumer and Business Affairs in South Australia approved it. AFAIK, it seems from this that OCBA does not force you to use a particular auditor but it can reject the one you choose. Obviously they saw nothing wrong. We don't get to just presume that the accountants are clams. You have to prove it. Even if you did, then what? What you'd really have to prove is an improprietry. Chartered Accountants will have more disclaimers than you can shake a stick at so good look with that. There are other things that need to be looked at before you start accusing the accountants. If there's any wrong doing then it'll be the cult giving the accountant dodgy numbers not he accountant making shit up. If there's anything that can't be verified then up pops another accountants disclaimer. Some of the new financial detail about the sales/purchases transactions involving goods and services as well as the loans with related entities of the cult, all needs looking at by someone with accounting kung-fu. Xenophon and the OCBA will be pouring over this too I guess. I don't know if it is now set in stone or the OCBA can say "This audit is shit. Too many disclaimers on vague transactions. Do it again with our appointed auditor". I'm just riffing here.
Well done Anonymous, and friends. It's always a good thing to remind the Scientology scammers that somebody (the law) is at cause over them, and this is a particularly nice example, because it's forced the UK clams to part with Scientology's holy of holies: money. £42,100 on this occasion is just under £24 per person for every Scientologist in the country - and that's based on the previous census. Their numbers have fallen sharply since then, so maybe we're looking at fifty quid a head, just for this. That 'tax free' dodge is looking a bit less attractive already. Well done Nick Xenophon. Can Eric Pickles do his share?
I had a look at the 2008 accounts. To the accounting layperson like myself it seems very odd, if not suspicious, that in one year the organisation will make $6 million from their operation, and then the next year lose $4.5 million from operations, all the while massive amounts of moneys are transferred in and out from various other Scientology entities, some charging interest on loans, some not. For the account to then state "The Church is a South Australian charity, and is established in England for charitable purposes only" - does sounds quite absurd. Fix'd. As Sponge has mentioned the accounting numbers all seem identical, however there was some extra info included in the audited dox, I found this section to be of particular interest: (typed out by myself, some figures of interest highlighted) An incredible amount of money going around here. This stuff is the real dox we want, how the tangled web of scientology entities fit together, and how (and where) the money flows. How can we obtain more detailed dox on this? Also this was nice,
Home › NESTA Investments Ltd NESTA Investments Ltd Official Name: NESTA Investments Ltd Web Site: www.nesta.org.uk Contact Details Main Office 1 Plough Place London, EC4R 3TW United Kingdom Telephone Main Office +44 (20) 7438-2500 LondonFax +44 (20) 7438-2501 London Other +44 (29) 2025-6295 WalesOther +44 (1382) 229-521 Scotland and Northern Ireland E-mail: information@nesta.org.uk Corporate Profile Founded 1962 Registration No. 00714194 (United Kingdom) Company Type: An independent body with a mission to make the UK more innovative Overview: NESTA is one of the UK's largest seed stage investors. Their fund is a compelling demonstration of how a blend of private and public capital can drive world-beating, innovative UK companies. It is a model which is increasingly becoming replicated across the country. They combine capital investment with non-financial support to help the UK's innovative early stage companies turn their ideas into commercial success. Investment Preferences Investment Size: up to GBP 3,000,000 NEST looks to initially invest up to £1 million, either as a lead investor in the company or part of a syndicate of co-investors. Geographic Focus: United Kingdom Industry Focus: Innovative Technology and Creative Industries Investment Stage: Startup and early stage Current Employees Employee Job Title Office Comment Mr Ivan Griffin Investment Manager London Mr Alex Hook Investment Manager London Mr Jonathan Kestenbaum Chief Executive London Ms Libby Kinsey Investment Manager London Mr Matt Mead Managing Director of Investments London Mr Daniel Oppenheimer Chief Operating Officer London Mr Andrew Small Investment Manager London Mr Stian Westlake Executive Director of Policy and Research London Mr George Whitehead Business Development Director London Mr Iain Wilcock Investment Director London Past Employees Employee Current Job Ms Melanie Goward Investment Executive, Finance Wales Investments PLC; Ms Rachel Grant Ms Anthea Harrison Mr David Hunter Mr Paul Vickery Company Logo: http://www.pseps.com/company/NESTA-Investments-Ltd
Home › Matt Mead Matt Mead Official Name: Matt Mead Managing Director of Investments (London ) NESTA Investments Ltd Profile Career: Over 14 years' experience investing in UK and international early stage ventures and was a Partner in 3i's Venture Capital business. Has worked with companies as a Board member through high growth, turnaround, exit and acquisitions. He recently led the secondary market disposal of 3i's Venture portfolio of assets in both the US and Europe. Has worked across all technology sectors but has specialised in the ICT market, working with companies including: Vistorm, a leading provider of e-security services (sold to EDS); Achilles, a provider of supplier information services (sold to HG Capital); Insensys the wind turbine monitoring business (sold to Moog Inc) and other leading venture backed technology businesses such as Garlik, CRF Health, Profile Therapeutics and CDC software.
Daniel Oppenheimer Official Name: Daniel Oppenheimer Chief Operating Officer (London) NESTA Investments Ltd Profile Career: NESTA's Chief Operating Officer and has overall responsibility for NESTA's effectiveness as an organisation, including performance measures, financial control, business planning and risk management. Also responsible for the investment and monitoring of NESTA's £300 million endowment. Most recently, was Head of Finance Strategy and Planning at the UK Department for Transport, where he oversaw the Department's long-term budgets and financial plans. Prior to that, spent 10 years at HM Treasury working on a wide range of policy issues, including heading the teams supporting two independent reviews of the financial services sector and being responsible for the Treasury's public expenditure control system. Also spent time on secondment to the voluntary and private sectors: he was Finance and Fundraising Director of a community regeneration project and worked for Gartmore Investment Management. Education: MSc in Economics from the LSE and is a qualified accountant (CIPFA).
Home › Andrew Small Andrew Small Official Name: Andrew Small Investment Manager (London) NESTA Investments Ltd Profile Career: Focused on working with businesses in the Internet, digital media, mobile and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) sectors. Particularly interested in innovations in e-commerce, search, digital marketing, enterprise SaaS and cloud computing. Currently works closely with BaseKit.com (professional website design in the cloud), Skimlinks (simplified affiliate marketing for publishers), Light Blue Optics (next generation interactive pico-projection) and Six-to-Start (an innovative cross-platform games company). Passionate supporter of Seedcamp, the NESTA funded European tech accelerator programme and is involved as a member of the Seedcamp selection panel. Joined NESTA in January 2007 after 4 years with Accenture’s capital markets technology group, where he was instrumental to a variety of high value systems design and implementation projects. Education: Member of the Securities and Investment Institute, following his completion of the Institutes’ Diploma (its premier qualification) and was the national prize winner 2006. First class BSc from the University of Bath School of Management.
George Whitehead Official Name: George Whitehead Business Development Director (London) NESTA Investments Ltd Profile Career: Creates innovative programmes to provide NESTA’s portfolio companies with effective business-building expertise and support. Before joining NESTA, set up a biotechnology incubator, and managed an ICT incubator in Canada on behalf of the University of Toronto. As a technology transfer manager at the university, led a number of high-profile economic development initiatives, ranging from writing a 'Commercialisation Handbook' (now used by over 20 universities across Canada), to setting up a vast pan-Northern Ontario investment network. Began his career as an investment manager at Oxford Innovation, where he built up one of the most successful business angel networks in Europe. As a senior consultant at Oxford Innovation, developed 'investment readiness' programmes. Was also involved in numerous projects working with government and commercial organisations to help solve funding, and management and skills problems facing companies caught in the equity gap. Directorships: Director of the British Business Angels Association and sits on the UKBI (UK Business Incubation) Enterprise Panel.
Iain Wilcock Official Name: Iain Wilcock Investment Director (London) NESTA Investments Ltd Profile Career: Established and ran the healthcare investment business of Quester Capital, an early stage venture capital business, for over 10 years. In 2000, founded Vela Venture Partners to advise early stage investors in the UK. Now working at NESTA as an Investment Director; and at Seventure, a French venture capital company, as its UK healthcare investment advisor. Education: Biochemistry degree from the University of Oxford. Directorships: Served on the boards of biotechnology and med-tech companies, including Vivacta, Avidex, Oxxon, Lectus, and Xention. Member of the British Venture Capital Association, the BioIndustry Association and UNICO. Recently appointed to the Strategic Advisory Board for IP Policy to advise the UK-IPO (UK Intellectual Property Office).
Wait, Nesta Investments Limited --this company that partners with the UK government to invest in healthcare "innovation", public services, financial planning, and fuck-all-- is a fucking subsidiary of the fucking Church of Scientology? http://www.nesta.org.uk/about_us Sounds a bit clammy, in that it doesn't provide actual goods or services but makes stuff moar innovative. If it transforms stuff or builds leadership, I would say clam.
Surely it can't be like that... that shit would just be ridiculous. Though I am quite curious to know what Scientology is up to with an investment firm. Man, the more I examine these figures the more I scratch my head in wonder. In 2007 $6million comes in from operations, $8 million out to debtors, then in 2008 $4.5million is lost in operations but that $8million appears to come back. At the end of the day they end up with more cash in hand. I know I'm not an accountant but WTF are regular business account statements always like this? I should probably look up the discussion from when the un-audited accounts were released, if we figured this shit out.
