Michael Bint — UK Insolvency Service
Public Record, Court Conduct, Due Process, Provable Lies, and Accountability
At the centre of this site is a public-interest concern: whether Michael Bint, in the exercise of public power, acted with truth, candour, due process, safeguarding responsibility, and accountability.
This website documents the evidential public record, source material, and key allegations concerning Michael Bint's conduct in relation to court candour, service of evidence, duty of care, and accountability within the UK Insolvency Service.
Featured statement
Why Lighthouse Global Was Attacked by the Establishment
Latest News Articles
Recent external coverage and related updates from our News Articles feed.
What this page documents
This page brings together the main public-interest allegations concerning Michael Bint, including:
- Provably and evidentially false and misleading statements made to the High Court on 29 July 2025
- Non-service of the Official Receiver's report relied upon before the February 2025 warrant of arrest was issued
- Failures of safeguarding and duty of care raised in earlier 2023 conduct and correspondence
- Allegations that these matters form part of a wider pattern of institutional misconduct, incompetence, corruption, evasion, covering up, and attempts to intimidate
Michael Bint's role (context)
Michael Bint has served within the UK Insolvency Service in senior capacities, including as Official Receiver (previously) and now as Deputy Official Receiver.
With such authority comes a duty to act lawfully, honestly, and with complete candour before the courts.
Key chronology
- October to November 2023: public letters and articles raised concerns about Michael Bint's handling of the Lighthouse matter, including alleged failures of duty of care and fair process.
- 25 February 2025: a warrant of arrest was issued after the court relied on an Official Receiver's report which, the Insolvency Service admitted had not been served on Mr Cooper beforehand.
- 29 July 2025: at a High Court hearing before Judge Agnello KC, Michael Bint made materially and provably false and misleading statements concerning "non-cooperation" and prior indication of attendance.
- 29 September 2025: the Insolvency Service is said to have refused to correct the record when challenged and evidence provided.
Why this site exists
This site exists to:
- Preserve the public record (in one place) concerning key allegations and supporting source material
- Present clear questions that require answers, in the public interest
- Publish any responses (or non-responses) in full, as part of the ongoing record
If Michael Bint (or the Insolvency Service) provides substantive answers and evidence that corrects the record, those answers will be published here.
If there is no response, that silence will also be recorded as part of the public record.
The core public-interest concerns (summary)
The published record raises concerns including:
1. Alleged misleading statements to the High Court (and failure to correct the record)
2. Alleged withholding / non-service of crucial material relied upon in court
3. Alleged safeguarding and duty-of-care failures (including serious human consequences)
4. A pattern concern: institutional evasion, non-response, or opaque handling when challenged with evidence
5. Allegations that the wider Lighthouse investigation was advanced on the basis of false or orchestrated whistleblowing
6. Alleged use of legal threats or pressure when scrutiny was brought to bear on public officials
Why this matters beyond one case
The linked record does not present these issues as isolated to a single hearing or a single individual. It raises a wider public-interest question: how state enforcement powers are exercised when liberty, reputation, property, health, and due process are at stake. The concern raised across the source material is that, if these allegations are well founded, the issue is systemic rather than incidental.
Questions Mr Bint should answer
a. Why was the Official Receiver's report not served to Mr Cooper before the February 2025 hearing, if it was to be relied upon?
b. On what basis was Judge Schaffer's position characterised as dealing with "non-cooperation"?
c. On what basis was it said there had been "no indication" of attendance or non-attendance, given the existence of medical material and prior written notice?
d. Why, when challenged afterwards with evidence, was the record not corrected?
Core public source documents
Key source pages (supporting record):
- Two Blatant Lies in Court, One Weaponised State: How the Insolvency Service and Michael Bint Misled the Judiciary
- Michael Bint, Insolvency Service: A Public Official Who Must Be Held Accountable
- A Gross Failure in Their Duty of Care by Michael Bint and the UK Insolvency Services
- Extra Lessons For Karen Baldock, Dean Beale, Michael Bint & Gary Seymour – UK Insolvency Service
- Open Letter to Duncan Beach, Chief Executive UK Insolvency Service – Part 1 of 3: The Corrupt Investigation Launched On The Back of Fake & Orchestrated Whistleblowing (refers to Michael Bint and his criminal conduct)