By . Steven Doughty . PUBLISHED: . 13:09 EST, 11 March 2014 . | . UPDATED: . 19:24 EST, 11 March 2014 . A City fund manager who fathered a child during an affair and lied to the courts about his wealth to reduce his paternity payments cannot be named, a judge ruled yesterday. The financial chief executive sold a company abroad for £111,000 and hid the profit from the family courts for more than three years. The attempt to cover up his wealth was exposed after the mother of his son found evidence of the lie and wanted his dishonesty made public, the High Court heard yesterday. A High Court judge has ruled that the details of a man who lied about his wealth to the courts should not be given to the police, Crown Prosecution Service or to the City regulator . But a judge ruled that the man’s name . and details of his cheating should not be given to the police or the . City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. His identity and that of his former girlfriend and child should be kept secret from the public, Mr Justice Bodey ordered. Although . the City case ‘came close to the line’, it would not be in the public . interest for the cheating fund manager – who is such a leading figure in . his field that he has assisted Prime Minister David Cameron in . furthering British business interests abroad – to be threatened with the . ruin of his career, or prosecuted for perjury, the judge said. The . City chief had ‘lied about his resources’ because ‘he did not wish to . have to pay the mother for the benefit of his child any more than he . could possibly avoid’, Mr Justice Bodey said. The . judge added: ‘This is in no way at all to excuse his conduct, which was . inexcusable, greedy, and unfair; but it is to put what he did in its . context.’ The City boss, . who is now 42, had a ‘relatively brief’ relationship with a ‘successful . professional’, now aged 40, which ended in 2007. While . the woman thought the affair was ‘an intense relationship’, the fund . manager thought it was ‘not quite a one-night stand, but very close to . it’. When the woman . became pregnant, the man told her to have an abortion. When she asked . for support, he denied he was the father and called for DNA testing. He has shown no interest in having regular contact with his son, who was called John in the courts. John . was awarded a settlement of £250,000, and his mother £40,000 for his . care. She then had to pay costs for a series of failed appeals. The . fund manager – who has since married – said that if his lies were . disclosed, ‘there is a grave risk it would spell his financial ruin’. After . the man’s real income was revealed, the courts awarded the mother a . further £80,000 and ordered him to pay £29,500 of her legal costs. Mr . Justice Bodey said it was not the role of the family court to . ‘proactively disclose information which might be of interest to outside . agencies, such as the police, the Revenue, regulatory bodies or . employers’. Mr Justice Bodey (pictured) said it would not be in the public interest for the cheating fund manager to be exposed to the ruin of his career . However, the mother persuaded a journalist abroad to make inquiries into the father's dealings. Evidence was turned up that a business had been sold, in a country called by the court 'Anonland', in 2009. In 2012 the father assured the courts he knew nothing about the sale and had made no money from it. Mr Justice Bodey said that in a hearing in December 2012, confronted by email evidence of his involvement, 'it was at this point only that he put his hands up and admitted that his case up until then had been false.' The mother, who is now training to be a barrister, told the High Court that the father's identity should be made known to police, regulators and the public because there is a public interest in the prosecution of crime, including perjury and perverting the course of justice. She said that it was in the public interest that regulators should be told, because the father was 'in a position of responsibility holding investors' funds and it is only right that the Financial Conduct Authority should investigate,' and that the disclosure of his behaviour 'would deter would-be liars from lying' in the courts. The mother said there would be no effect on John if the father was prosecuted, because he had no contact with his father. Children, she said, do not shield people from the consequences of their criminality. The father - who has since married and has two young children with his wife - said that if his lies were disclosed 'there is a grave risk it would spell his financial ruin'. He said this would harm John because it would mean the loss of support from his father. He said he had 'put his hands up', apologised and given evidence about the £111,000 undisclosed profit. The father said the mother had a single-minded determination to bring him down, and 'the family courts deal routinely with cases of high emotion, bitterness and recrimination which is particular to the relationship between the parties, and which leads people to do discreditable things like lying, which they would not do in other spheres of their life'. Since the father's real income has been revealed, the courts have awarded the mother a further £80,000 and ordered the father to pay £29,500 of her legal costs. Mr Justice Bodey said it was not the role of the family court 'proactively to disclose information which might be of interest to outside agencies, such as the police, the Revenue, regulatory bodies or employers. 'Given the number of skeletons which come out of cupboards in family proceedings, where would it end?', the judge asked.
Financial chief executive quietly sold a company abroad for £111,000 and then hid the profit from the family courts for more than three years .
He lied to avoid having to pay more to support his son by an ex-girlfriend .
But a High Court judge has ruled that his name and details of his cheating should not be given to the police, CPS or the City regulator .
By . Steven Doughty . PUBLISHED: . 13:09 EST, 11 March 2014 . | . UPDATED: . 19:24 EST, 11 March 2014 . A City fund manager who fathered a child during an affair and lied to the courts about his wealth to reduce his paternity payments cannot be named, a judge ruled yesterday. The financial chief executive sold a company abroad for £111,000 and hid the profit from the family courts for more than three years. The attempt to cover up his wealth was exposed after the mother of his son found evidence of the lie and wanted his dishonesty made public, the High Court heard yesterday. A High Court judge has ruled that the details of a man who lied about his wealth to the courts should not be given to the police, Crown Prosecution Service or to the City regulator . But a judge ruled that the man’s name . and details of his cheating should not be given to the police or the . City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. His identity and that of his former girlfriend and child should be kept secret from the public, Mr Justice Bodey ordered. Although . the City case ‘came close to the line’, it would not be in the public . interest for the cheating fund manager – who is such a leading figure in . his field that he has assisted Prime Minister David Cameron in . furthering British business interests abroad – to be threatened with the . ruin of his career, or prosecuted for perjury, the judge said. The . City chief had ‘lied about his resources’ because ‘he did not wish to . have to pay the mother for the benefit of his child any more than he . could possibly avoid’, Mr Justice Bodey said. The . judge added: ‘This is in no way at all to excuse his conduct, which was . inexcusable, greedy, and unfair; but it is to put what he did in its . context.’ The City boss, . who is now 42, had a ‘relatively brief’ relationship with a ‘successful . professional’, now aged 40, which ended in 2007. While . the woman thought the affair was ‘an intense relationship’, the fund . manager thought it was ‘not quite a one-night stand, but very close to . it’. When the woman . became pregnant, the man told her to have an abortion. When she asked . for support, he denied he was the father and called for DNA testing. He has shown no interest in having regular contact with his son, who was called John in the courts. John . was awarded a settlement of £250,000, and his mother £40,000 for his . care. She then had to pay costs for a series of failed appeals. The . fund manager – who has since married – said that if his lies were . disclosed, ‘there is a grave risk it would spell his financial ruin’. After . the man’s real income was revealed, the courts awarded the mother a . further £80,000 and ordered him to pay £29,500 of her legal costs. Mr . Justice Bodey said it was not the role of the family court to . ‘proactively disclose information which might be of interest to outside . agencies, such as the police, the Revenue, regulatory bodies or . employers’. Mr Justice Bodey (pictured) said it would not be in the public interest for the cheating fund manager to be exposed to the ruin of his career . However, the mother persuaded a journalist abroad to make inquiries into the father's dealings. Evidence was turned up that a business had been sold, in a country called by the court 'Anonland', in 2009. In 2012 the father assured the courts he knew nothing about the sale and had made no money from it. Mr Justice Bodey said that in a hearing in December 2012, confronted by email evidence of his involvement, 'it was at this point only that he put his hands up and admitted that his case up until then had been false.' The mother, who is now training to be a barrister, told the High Court that the father's identity should be made known to police, regulators and the public because there is a public interest in the prosecution of crime, including perjury and perverting the course of justice. She said that it was in the public interest that regulators should be told, because the father was 'in a position of responsibility holding investors' funds and it is only right that the Financial Conduct Authority should investigate,' and that the disclosure of his behaviour 'would deter would-be liars from lying' in the courts. The mother said there would be no effect on John if the father was prosecuted, because he had no contact with his father. Children, she said, do not shield people from the consequences of their criminality. The father - who has since married and has two young children with his wife - said that if his lies were disclosed 'there is a grave risk it would spell his financial ruin'. He said this would harm John because it would mean the loss of support from his father. He said he had 'put his hands up', apologised and given evidence about the £111,000 undisclosed profit. The father said the mother had a single-minded determination to bring him down, and 'the family courts deal routinely with cases of high emotion, bitterness and recrimination which is particular to the relationship between the parties, and which leads people to do discreditable things like lying, which they would not do in other spheres of their life'. Since the father's real income has been revealed, the courts have awarded the mother a further £80,000 and ordered the father to pay £29,500 of her legal costs. Mr Justice Bodey said it was not the role of the family court 'proactively to disclose information which might be of interest to outside agencies, such as the police, the Revenue, regulatory bodies or employers. 'Given the number of skeletons which come out of cupboards in family proceedings, where would it end?', the judge asked.
chief executive sold a company abroad for £111,000 and hid the profit from the family courts for more than three years. The attempt to yesterday. A High Court judge has ruled that the But a judge ruled that the man’s name . and details of his cheating should not be given to the police or the . City regulator, the Financial