.

On 11 December 2015, the London Evening Standard and the LSE student newspaper, The Beaver

both ran articles alleging fraud and “criminal” events at the LSE.


The allegations point to a continued pattern of unethical behaviour

first chronicled by Lord Woolf’s Inquiry into the LSE’s Libya/Gaddafi scandal,

and which has recently resulted in the largest lawsuits in Higher Education.


As of June 2017, the case remains active, with a lawsuit being pursued against the LSE.


Conversely, the LSE’s allegations of IP infringements against the Claimant

have proven hollow as no legal action was ever taken by the LSE.

International Institute for Strategic Leadership

IISL Case Study: ETHICS at THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

LSE’s Alleged Forgery, IP Theft, Fraud and Embezzlement

10 November 2015

“London School of Economics intercepts student email [journalist of the LSE student newspaper, The Beaver]

http://beaveronline.co.uk/lse-intercept-email-regarding-beaver-investigation/ …

[Note: article remains online as of 20 March 2017].


11 November 2015

“What is or was The Beaver investigating that justified the LSE intercepting a student's private emails?”


12 November 2015

“Hopefully, when The Beaver ready to publish findings, the LSE will... allow freedom of press”


11 December 2015

The story begins to surface

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/lse-rocked-by-claim-of-200000-fraud-and-criminal-events-a3135271.html …

[Note: article taken down upon receiving legal threats from the LSE].

[Note also that by coincidence, a separate multi-million Pound lawsuit was filed in the UK High Court against the LSE the day before, on 10 December 2015].


“Is Evening Stan story of wrongdoings at LSE, linked to interception by LSE of student emails, reported by The Beaver in November?”


“The Beaver confirms student email intercept by LSE related to Even Stan story.”


“Cat of the bag. The Beaver reporting on Even Stan story which LSE apparently trying to cover up: http://beaveronline.co.uk/200000-fraud-and-criminal-activity-at-lse-claims-former-lse-academic/ …

[Note: article taken down upon receiving legal threats from the LSE].


15 December 2015

“Does LSE think it can avoid facing up to a GBP 200,000 fraud commited internally and to the detriment of its students?”


“Beaver claims Dir Calhoun was aware of alleged fraud. What has he done about it? Do such crimes enjoy impunity at LSE?”


17 December 2015

“BREAKING NEWS: Craig Calhoun announces he will NOT be seeking a second term as LSE director: http://beaveronline.co.uk/i-will-not-seek-a-second-term-as-lse-director-calhoun-announces/ …

[Note: @LSEInvestigator re-Tweeted this from @Beaveronline].

[Note also that the article has been taken down].


28 December 2015

“LSEInvestigator receiving reports that fraud story on Even Stan and Beaver Online websites, taken down.” [Note: IISL research reveals articles taken down upon receiving legal threats from the LSE].


12 April 2016

“In October 2011, an LSE faculty member discovered that £ 200,000 were missing from an account held at the LSE.”


“The faculty member and the LSE Research Office began to investigate the matter.”


“Discovered account depletion due to 30 reimbursement invoices and staff contracts paying monies to former assistants of faculty member.”


“The salary of one of the former assistants only possible as a result of a promotion for extraordinary performance.”


“Faculty member notified Research Office all documents provided contained his forged signature. Who forged signature & authorized promotion?”


14 April 2016

“Soon after Research Office was told by faculty member 30+ docs provided had his forged signature, LSE went silent and stopped cooperating”


“Faculty member requested from LSE HR copy of the assistant's personnel file, containing forged contracts, to see who signed promotion papers”


“LSE HR claimed for privacy reasons they could not provide him with assistant's file (he recently retired and therefore "external" person).”


“Later LSE HR claimed entire personnel file of assistant had gone missing.”


“LSE hired forensic accounting firm [called BDO] to carry out internal investigation. Faculty member interviewed & he provided copies of forged contracts.”


“In early 2012, forensic accounting firm informed faculty member that preliminary report had been completed. What was the outcome?”


16 April 2016

“BDO [forensic accounting firm] notified now retired faculty member that it was up to LSE to share the results of the report with him.”


“Retired faculty member requested several times meeting with then interim LSE Director [Judith Rees] to find out about results.”


“All requests to meet were refused by LSE and retired faculty member told report would not be shared with him nor made public.”


“In June 2012, BDO [forensic accounting firm] contacted retired faculty member requesting another meeting.”


“BDO [forensic accounting firm] asked RFM [retired faculty member] about allegations made by 3rd party against him by 3rd party. BDO did not say who that person was or extent of allegations.”


“RFM [retired faculty member] answered all questions and asked if forgeries had been examined. Despite having said they would, BDO [forensic accounting firm] said they had not been.”


“RFM [retired faculty member] hired a certified signature expert to analyse the forgeries. What would the expert conclude?”


20 April 2016

“Expert issued report concluding that there was ‘very strong evidence" that the RFM [retired faculty member] "did not make the questioned signatures in his name’.”


“Furthermore, that based on there being two styles of forgeries at least ‘two individuals had been responsible for the signatures’”


“Finally that there was strong resemblance between one of the styles of forgeries and signature of RFM's [retired faculty member] former assistant.”


“RFM [retired faculty member] sent a copy of the damning report to the LSE. The LSE did not reply to the evidence presented.”


“The former assistant continued to be employed at the LSE despite the evidence presented against her.”


“Due to LSE silence and refusal to share results of BDO [forensic accounting firm] investigation RFM [retired faculty member] contacted former colleagues to investigate forgeries and promotions”


“Former colleagues who were in a position to approve the promotions stated to RFM [retired faculty member] that they had not approved promotion of former assistant”


“Following meetings with former colleagues, on 12 Dec 2012 LSE an exclusion notice banning RFM [retired faculty member] from stepping onto LSE campus.”


“LSE justified exclusion based on an "intellectual property" dispute with the RFM [retired faculty member].”


“London Metropolitan Police has stated that such exclusions are only issued if the person presents a ‘physical threat to students and staff’.”


“RFM [retired faculty member] is the only person, not presenting a physical threat, who has received such a notice.”


“The LSE has refused on numerous occasions for RFM [retired faculty member] to appeal the exclusion notice which has been outstanding for the past 3.5 years.”


“LSE has also refused to back its accusations of IP theft with evidence or attempt at prosecution.”


“The LSE Court of Governors has declined to consider RFM [retired faculty member] complaint against the exclusion notice.”


“Dean [LSE Director] Calhoun has refused to speak to or exchange correspondence with RFM [retired faculty member] on the matter.”


“As far as LSEInvestigator understands the former assistant has faced no sanctions for possible forgeries and theft of GBP 200,000 from LSE”


“RFM [retired faculty member] has appealed to the ICO under the Freedom Info Act for details if his forged signatures were on any promotion papers of former assisant”


“and to receive copy of BDO [forensic accounting firm] report to have details on any accusations made against him or extent of the forgeries of his signature”


“LSE has refused to issue BDO [forensic accounting firm] report because its release could be commercially damaging to the school”


“and the LSE claims to have, once again, lost the HR folder of the former assistant containing details of the promotion papers.”


“The ICO [Information Commissioner’s Office] criticized openly LSE for its mishandling of private information of its employees leading to the multiple loss of the HR folder”



“Attempts by the Beaver [LSE student newspaper], supposedly "independent", to publish details on this story were stopped by the LSE”


LSE administration has carried out a cover up of the theft, trying to prevent information reaching public.”


“Dean [LSE Director] Calhoun and former replacement dean [interim Director, Judith Rees] have been aware of this case and have refused to take any action.”


“Open ended exclusion notice against RFM [Retired Faculty Member] continues to remain in effect with out any right to appeal.”


“No UK academic body or LSE governing body has accepted to allow an appeals process of the exclusion notice.”

IISL Fellows can access these and more data and evidence via the IISL Fellows’ Portal.

Case Summary

A leading male LSE faculty member was the victim of criminal acts

by his former female LSE postgraduate student and his LSE (direct-report) employee.


The faculty member was subsequently falsely accused by the LSE

of those very criminal acts committed by his former student.


The faculty member successfully defended himself against these false accusations

and filed a formal grievance against his former student.


The LSE refused to investigate the faculty member’s formal grievance

against his former student, whom the LSE continued to employ.


The former student continued to commit criminal acts

against the faculty member, while still employed by the LSE.


The LSE forbade the faculty member from attending

his own postgraduate students’ graduation ceremony.


The faculty member was forced to initiate and pay for his own expert forensic and legal services,

the results of which were ignored by the LSE.


The LSE launched a multi-year campaign of negligence, victimisation, harassment and cover-up

against the innocent faculty member and his wife,

which negatively impacted the health of both.


The LSE’s aforementioned campaign against the faculty member

occurred across multiple functions/departments and at multiple levels within the LSE,

starting at the top with the LSE Director Craig Calhoun.


The LSE and its lawyers, Pinsent Masons victimised and falsely accused the faculty member

of Intellectual Property infringements and made illegal groundless threats against him.


The LSE repeatedly violated Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act requests

from the faculty member, and was reprimanded by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office.


Throughout this case, the LSE repeatedly violated its new Lord Woolf-mandated Ethics Code.


The faculty member’s last day at the LSE was 12 December 2012.

Twitter source @LSEInvestigator maintains a public record of further details of the allegations,

which IISL research has independently corroborated.


The following is a brief chronological summary of excerpts from these Tweets

[with IISL commentary in brackets]:

In this case, the LSE made repeated violations of

the UK Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and the UK Data Protection Act (DPA)

and received reprimands from the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

It is important to note that each of the above allegations

are the same as those surrounding a completely separate case which occurred at the same time

and which formed the largest lawsuits in the history of UK Higher Education.